Report of the Technical Committee to enquire into the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems

of

: Report of the

chi ‘ical Committee to Enquire into the
Welfare of Animals kept under

| e Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems

: Chairman : Pfecor F. W. Rogers Brambell, F.R.S.

Presented to Pa Barient by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the
Mi inister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
by Command of Her Majesty
December, 1965

| for the Promotion
| _LIBRARY _

) cee - _ LONDON :
HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE
PRICE 6s. 6d. NET

‘mnd. 2836

I
AACE

22900150316

Med
K52161

Report of the
Technical Committee to Enquire into the
Welfare of Animals kept under
Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems
Chairman: Professor F. W. Rogers Brambell, F.R.S.

Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the
Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
by Command of Her Majesty
December, 1965

LONDON
HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE

PRICE 65. 6d. NET
Cmnd. 2836

aa estes rates " Ree: ae. ee to,
y 7 4 é :

fs ad ~S : 7 an . : se - s
RR oe tse a REY
Se Toe | 4 ret ey 4h It ’ - ae! Les ine le >
‘ : -— =, . \ v
ne ee eS at spat Ay 4
ih , “48 oS Bet vidoe wr
i? ‘ . i e ~ af 4 © 7
! a +
.. a
| EA IRD PST URI
inv * ry Gee » ey! TA
sii ane PV iCPia! A ae pai ¥.. i
| ate EAOV na : ae
Maleate (HABE - STeaYl.
‘ 4‘ a
: e ; . j kK te, .
> > ot =f _ . é J >? -. . -
a ae « a ~ aN
— : a 2 Pt 4+ a - 4
i e , * Sy j rm ‘x Es 4 s or ee ete
7 che k- ‘ 7 +
cate a eee :s : ay ee
ee Oe ER hte ee SAE sidsstio yD ua gis 4 Fy.
wv a es ie “ 3 ‘hs . > s\ << oe MOORES, ae :
‘> : a a tp oat Pe a sans att ry . , *
yes =” IMD Bast RG Bs isd > “Fibra? pe ee
q ~ m > . no F fe
- - , i oJ ; < ‘Sa. by ™~. 7
PRB => P :
*-. ? 7 os ‘ \ 5 te t " -¥ %) , t
=: ‘S Pe
‘ ith .. PAA, RBASAS 1 SGA ayonolt idy Mt
_ Po > — : ‘ ~
. 7 basa ‘ $ a yeh Vise LSTA eas a 2) ans te
: = ‘
~
Se
: , Vs eo es : f
vs y eee Meh Gecwotlst ent dtr 6)
hanes: s1s0407 wi. Go Noi Few enht ot saci LOOoE Pon
: See 7 ae Se ;
une - :
» j .
. *. = 3 ie A
=,
P . —
- ~
a) " 4 |
: 7
~~ ‘ ai
4 : »
y ~ .. aN
of » > + ba 4
| = J > 7 "
es a yt ¥ ; a) c of aan "¢
aes . a ;
a nN > “i “ * m” x *
eet: ee i
betes ~ ;
. Sh : %
: »
-~
: ‘o
‘ S be. = aa
i a 7 ’ L
; i! ‘ .

CONTENTS

Chapter Paragraph Page
1 Introduction ... a os ee ae a I-10 ]
2 The Development of Intensive Methods ... Na) 11-17 4
3. Animal Welfare Legislation dics ad en 18-24 i)
4 The Welfare of Animals _... ne x) me 25-46 9
5 Domestic Fowl ok “s a fs ee 47-102 16
6-" Pigs’ .; as R a aed ae He 103-126 28
TO "Cattle: 35. Hes ee es ey; ie s 127-172 35
8 Sheep ... | in as we se 173-183 48
§ Turkeys, Ducks and Rabbits ae ne sf. 184-208 51
10 Stockmanship, Education and Training ... ae 209-219 56
11 Implementation ae en sh ai = 220-231 60
Summary of Recommendations _... oo “ie Be ao Os
Appendices
I Evidence presented we sii a ae aa ie a6
II Visits made by the Committee ... ss = — ae 69
IJ Memorandum by Dr. W. H. Thorpe _... em We eee

TV Reprint from report of Committee on Experiments on Animals 80
V_ Reprint from report of Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals 82

VI Note provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food on Food Additives, Antibiotics and Oestrogens pet OF

Nee, ; aa
Sy telah Inpro. ame
ugh i i a aes ai 2 ne
gop Saggy
Po ai. eh
+ SOR PSE: =
: C Sta
‘ PooBE- oiene
0 “Ree
> 7 te. ae £Ot--¥h
ee i Ei
a We PAE eS
Paty ee. C80 See
ie - aw “ a — ie 7 f *
oC Ra ae
. te: -- [£S-f89 Sy Sane eer = ays ee é colin ;
; ; : “e : ee = » ¥ hee ca a
BON SS Se Se os Se tee, zaniabtismmegat We: 2
rt ee ee eS NG eee ab
a an
; ee
ay
i. pe is v en aN 3 fhe oii nse 3 Ye finest apt re

7 a ‘pes selendiart “*eluores 16 Aiea ott ed. leabe THE
OT ki OR Sie: ee yeteot) bay pains febece hood an.

. = — a *
iw oy ~, s - 13
> < ¥ ~~ =a
2 ~ *
Se
* ‘ 2
Z a
, =
4
.
4 P oe
o y ;
va 7 tea Ee sie
7 i]
-
- ne 4
« * 7
A ee
ry B) rs = a
*
* .
” 4 ~ Z > A
% ‘
es
5 é
e
f - 7" "
= *
.
- “
, ik »
A
>
~~ be 7
‘ 2 Ps
‘ % K ee
‘< od - co
2 ~ ee s
« ~ . ~ a” . -_—*-
‘
»
* ¥
* %,
3 7 y .
a \
a
_ > ~ ei)
“@ oe
! . ;
“1 , 5 _ ‘
‘ai * ie
Tl ; .

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1. We were appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland at the end of June, 1964:—
“To examine the conditions in which livestock are kept under systems of
intensive husbandry and to advise whether standards ought to be set in the
interests of their welfare, and if so what they should be.”

2. We have held meetings on 33 days, on 15 of which we have heard oral
evidence. We have visited 54 livestock establishments throughout England,
Wales and Scotland. In addition, we visited Denmark, Holland and Northern
Ireland in order to enquire into matters which seemed relevant to our study.
We have invited the submission of written evidence in the public press and
directly from those organisations, departments and individuals known to us
to be particularly concerned with matters within our terms of reference. We
have invited oral evidence to supplement the written evidence when we
considered this to be useful. A list of those from whom we received formal
evidence, written or oral, is contained in Appendix I. In addition we re-
ceived over 250 letters from members of the public expressing opinions and
making suggestions. All these were taken into account.

3. Our report relates to Great Britain, but not to Northern Ireland. Our
terms of reference do not include transport, slaughter, nor the breeding, as
distinct from the keeping, of animals intensively as, for example, by artificial
insemination. Antibiotics, hormone and drug treatments and food supple-
ments we consider to be included in our terms of reference in so far as these
may affect the welfare of the animals. The effects of such administrations
on the animal product as food for human consumption is not within our
terms of reference but we have been assured that these important aspects of
the problem are being considered by other bodies within whose spheres of
responsibility they fall. We reproduce as Appendix VI a note prepared in
the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food giving information on this
subject.

4. First we sought to inform ourselves of the methods of intensive live-
stock husbandry in use by all means available, including visits of the Com-
mittee to representative establishments. ‘These visits were by the courtesy
of the owners and were necessarily arranged in advance, since we had no
rights of entry to private property. They are listed in Appendix II. We are
glad to acknowledge the co-operation of the owners in permitting these
visits, and the time and trouble which they expended in making the visits
as informative and convenient as possible. We are aware that our procedure
has been criticised in certain quarters because it did not include the paying
of surprise visits to intensive establishments. We do not accept the validity
of this criticism because the purpose of our visits was to educate ourselves,
so as to be in a position to appreciate the evidence presented to us and so as
to enable us to frame our recommendations on the basis of the conclusions

|
30234 A 3

arrived at in the light of the evidence. We were concerned with learning
from these visits the current methods of animal production, not with the
discovery of individual malpractices where such may exist. Furthermore,
we had amongst our members those thoroughly familiar with the range of
conditions in animal production that are to be encountered in this country.
We were also able to call on the National Agricultural Advisory Service and
on animal welfare societies for help in eliciting additional information about
any unusual or extreme form of production.

5. We were aware of the extent of public disquiet concerning the welfare
of animals kept intensively and considered it incumbent upon us to report
as early as possible. This sense of urgency set a limit to the numbers of
intensive husbandry establishments, at home and overseas, which could be
visited and precluded our waiting for information, particularly on matters
concerning animal behaviour, which could be obtained only by initiating
comparatively long term researches.

6. It is difficult to define precisely the term “intensive livestock
husbandry ”. We have considered the keeping of poultry of all sorts,
whether hens, turkeys or other birds, entirely within doors on deep-litter,
slats or wire or in battery cages ; the keeping of rabbits under comparable
conditions ; beef, veal-calf, sheep and pig production under cover, as falling
clearly within our terms of reference. All these methods result in the rapid
production of animal products by standardised methods involving economy
of land and labour. All are capable of exploitation on a large scale, and
units of varying sizes, some very large and some quite small, are in operation.
A high degree of mechanisation and automation is a feature of many of the
larger establishments.

7. Intensive husbandry is not new. Some traditional methods still in use
fall clearly within this definition. We have frequently heard the expression
“factory farming”, which we understand to relate only to those intensive
methods which are of large scale and highly automated. Some witnesses
have appeared to draw a distinction between intensive units which are part
of a general farm and those which have been developed as separate entities
apart from the traditional use of land, sometimes financed by people who
have no other interest in farming. In so far as all these are intensive, we
have considered that they fall within our terms of reference and that these
distinctions are unimportant to us, our concern being with the welfare of the
animals, wherever they may be kept and by whomsoever they may be owned.
We have not considered the problem of the nuisance to neighbours that may
be caused by intensive units, especially when these are in or near built-up
areas, nor the sanitary problems involved, except in so far as they concern
the welfare of the animals. There may be considerable problems regarding
sanitation and nuisance that require examination and possible action by the
relevant authorities.

8. A number of factors have contributed to the development and spread
of intensive methods of animal husbandry and these we examine in more
detail in Chapter 2. Probably the most important have been economic
pressures on producers. There can, however, be little doubt that in this
country in the foreseeable future the trend towards intensive animal hus-
bandry, with its economy of manpower and land, is likely to accelerate.

2

Short of prohibition, an extension of intensive systems can be anticipated,
involving both a spread and development of existing ones and the appear-
ance of new ones.

9. Historically the evolution of our society has been marked by increas-
ing concern for the welfare of animals. Many cruel practices, such as
badger-baiting and cock-fighting, have been proscribed by law. Others,
including castration or dehorning of adult cattle, can now be carried out
only under anaesthesia. The movement and slaughter of animals for food
are controlled in the interest of the animals. Indeed, this Committee was
established in response to widespread concern for the welfare of animals
under systems of intensive husbandry. It appears to us reasonable to antici-
pate a continuing development of concern for animal welfare and that
conditions which appear to us tolerable today may come to be considered
intolerable in the future.

10. We consider, for the reasons set out in the above paragraphs, that
our recommendations must, on the one hand, have a flexibility that will
permit of a progressive development of sound systems of animal husbandry
and on the other, cover the welfare of the animals. Accordingly, we will
make recommendations designed to continue and extend the work which
we have attempted to initiate. Machinery of this nature would avoid the
necessity for too frequent full-scale enquiries, of the kind which we have
been called upon to conduct.

30234 A4

CHAPTER 2

THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTENSIVE METHODS

11. Intensive livestock husbandry is part of wider changes that can be
discerned in farming in the years since the war. Of the various factors
which have contributed to its development and spread probably the most
important have been economic pressures. Certain systems, such as the
production of white veal and the use of high humidity housing for pigs,
stand partly outside this general trend; although there are economic
advantages the main reason for the use of the particular method lies
in the specialised nature of the end product, or in the attempt to over-
come a particular problem of husbandry. But for the main part, where
intensification is to be found in the production of major items of food,
it is associated with economic forces from two sides. First, production
costs in farming, particularly wages, have been rising steadily, as they have
in most forms of economic enterprise. At the same time, in the last few
years, there have been market forces tending to hold down prices for some
agricultural products, including poultry meat, eggs and pig products. These
pressures on the farmer have made him increasingly cost and profit con-
scious and have caused him to put far greater emphasis than ever before
on efficiency and business management in farming. The result has been
greater sophistication in costing, leading to the standardisation and refinement
of methods which are fundamental to intensive production.

12. There has been an accompanying movement towards specialised
businesses and away from the interdependence of different enterprises within
a single farm. There has also been a move towards larger units and
increasing integration so that the producer can obtain advantages in pur-
chasing and marketing and can, by virtue of the greater turnover, accept
reduced margins per unit of production. As with other features of inten-
sification, this trend is most noticeable in the poultry industry where, for
instance, the June 1963 Census showed that 250 holdings each with more
than 20,000 broilers accounted for two-thirds of the national flock. In
1957 there were only just over 50 units in England and Wales with more
than 5,000 laying birds; by 1964 the number was nearly 1,000. Over the
same period the percentage of the national flock in England and Wales
maintained in units of more than 1,000 birds increased from about 14 to 54.
Intensification permits of a relatively large turnover from a small site and,
in this sense, is economical of land and buildings. Indoor management
with a uniform environment, diet and animal strain lends itself to mechanisa-
tion, with consequent economy of manpower, but, to be fully successful, it
demands correspondingly higher standards of skilled stockmanship. These
characteristics of intensification encourage specialisation, both in terms of the
kind of animals kept and the methods used. An intensive unit can be
housed on a very small area of land, without the necessity of being attached
to a farm, provided the food can be bought, and the manure disposed of,
economically. Intensification has also proceeded on farms, not only as

4

a means of increasing the stocking rate and hence the turnover, but also
in some cases as the most profitable way of disposing of crops.

13. These developments have been facilitated and encouraged by the
application of new thinking and new techniques to food production and
marketing. Marketing developments need not concern us save to note that
they require, in particular, large quantities of standardised products and that
the tendency is to try to make supplies independent of season. As to pro-
duction, developments have stemmed from scientific research, especially in
the field of genetics, where large-scale research and breeding programmes
have led to the development of specialist hybrid strains of poultry tailored
to the husbandry systems under which they are to be kept and capable of
extremely high performance in terms of conversion of food into saleable
products. The result has been the virtual disappearance both of the
traditional breeds and the small-scale breeder and the dominance of specialist
hybrid stock bred by large commercial organisations. Similar developments,
already discernible with pigs and sheep, may follow with other stock, but
these are likely to take place much more slowly. Rapid progress has been
possible with poultry because they mature rapidly and produce large num-
bers of offspring, advantages which do not apply with cattle, sheep or even
pigs.

14. In addition to genetic changes, applied research has had important
results in management. Much of this research has been done commercially,
in particular by the manufacturers of animal feeding stuffs. The major
firms producing branded foods accept as part of their routine sales promo-
tion the task of providing up-to-date scientific advice on production tech-
niques in the same way that the big poultry breeders recommend specific
methods for achieving the best commercial results from their stock. These
efforts of private enterprise have been paralleled by research carried out
in the Universities and through the Agricultural Research Council, the
National Agricultural Advisory Service and other organisations. Taken
in all, considerable resources have been directed into the development of -
new farming methods, both of crop and of livestock husbandry, and their
effect has been to facilitate the rapid adoption of intensive systems.

15. Though the principal aim of the producer in turning to more intensive
methods is to improve profitability, one of the main advantages which such
methods offer him over conventional forms of production is a closer and
more certain control of the different sides of his management. This is con-
nected with what must be identified as the chief characteristic of intensifica-
tion ; the rejection of traditional outdoor foraging systems in favour of bring-
ing the food to the stock, housed permanently indoors, often with complete
independence of season or weather conditions by the use of artificially con-
trolled temperature, humidity and lighting. Under these circumstances, the
food ration has to be complete and properly balanced. When prepared
feeds are used their cost tends to be high in relation to other production
costs and one of the producer’s main endeavours is to obtain the most
economic conversion rates. The restraint on exercise and the protection from
extremes of climate help in this aim.

16. In order for the rather higher capital costs of advanced housing to
be justified it is desirable to maximise productivity ; thus it is that the feeding

5

regime is intended to bring the animals forward to slaughter weight as
quickly as possible or to achieve the maximum production of eggs or milk
within the economic life span of the animal.

17. The use of these methods has, as we have said, gone further in some
spheres than in others. When we deal with individual species of animals later
on, we pay more attention to methods and the reasons for their use. Here,
we think it more important to note that the forces which have led to the
growth of intensive methods are still at work. There can be little doubt that
in this country in the foreseeable future the trend towards intensive animal
husbandry is likely to accelerate.

CHAPTER 3

ANIMAL WELFARE LEGISLATION

18. In the early stages of our work we sought to acquaint ourselves with
the existing animal welfare legislation. We felt we needed to understand
both its general principles and philosophy as they have evolved over the
course of the years and the way it applies to the intensively kept animals
with which our investigation is concerned. A study of the legislation reveals
a steady multiplication of the measures which represents an increasingly
humane attitude to animals.

19. The movement to legislate for the protection of animals against cruelty
probably began around the end of the eighteenth century though earlier
measures had touched on the subject. In 1809 a Private Member’s Bill was
introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Erskine, intended to provide some
legal protection for animals, but it was defeated in the House of Commons.
An important landmark occurred in 1835 with the passing of an Act to
“consolidate and amend the several laws relating to the cruelty and im-
proper treatment of animals and the mischief arising from the driving of
cattle and to make other provisions in regard thereto”. This Act set a pattern
which was followed in a further consolidating Act of 1849 and so became the
basis for the Protection of Animals Act 1911 which is still in force today.
The main principle which Parliament accepted in these measures was that,
while man is free to subjugate animals, it is wrong for him to cause them to
suffer unnecessarily. This principle is clearly laid down in Section 1 of the
1911 Act (and in the corresponding Scottish Act of 1912) which makes it
an offence to cause or permit any unnecessary suffering to any domestic
or captive animal by the commission or omission of any act.

20. While preserving this general principle of the 1911 Act unimpaired,
Parliament has from time to time thought it necessary to buttress it
with additional legislation where it seemed that particular practices needed
specific control or that certain kinds of animals kept under particular circum-
stances were in need of further protection. Like the 1911 Act and its pre-
decessors this additional legislation has, for the most part, been introduced
in Parliament by private members and it consists of a number of measures.
One important aspect concerns practices which expert veterinary opinion
believes to cause suffering which can be avoided by some reasonable means.
The Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act 1954, as amended by the Pro-
tection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act 1964 requires, in effect, the use of an
anaesthetic for the performance of specific operations on farm and domestic
animals. There are also measures aimed at ensuring minimum conditions
where animals are kept in particular circumstances. These are relevant to
our field. We have looked at the Pet Animals Act 1951, the Animal Board-
ing Establishment Act 1963 and the Riding Establishments Act 1964 (which
superseded an Act of the same name of 1939). These Acts are intended to
ensure that those responsible for the custody and care of animals are re-
putable and reliable persons and provide adequate facilities. Enforcement

7

of the three last-named Acts is in the hands of Local Authorities who have
discretion to grant licences for the maintenance of the establishments and are
vested with powers of entry for the purpose of inspection. With riding
establishments, the Local Authorities must obtain a report from a veterinary
surgeon or veterinary practitioner approved by them before deciding whether
to grant or renew any licence. As licences are renewable annually this means
that such establishments are inspected by an independent veterinarian at
least once a year, but the legislation does not provide for uniform or
minimum standards.

21. Under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 the Agricultural Ministers
have powers to make Orders regulating the movement of animals, including
Orders for the protection of animals from unnecessary suffering during transit.
These powers were extended by the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions)
Act 1963 to include the making of Orders to cover animals in markets and
while being exported.

22. We have not excluded from our study legislation dealing with animals
used for laboratory experiments; but this is a specialised field which has
been subject to close control and inspection for nearly 100 years and it has
been the subject of a separate inquiry recently. Though it has some lessons
for us, it stands outside the general field of animal welfare legislation.

23. Despite the steady increase in the number and scope of minor
measures to support it, the 1911 Act remains the main pillar of the animal
welfare legislation. Its terms are wide and it is possible under them for
anyone causing suffering to an animal to be brought to Court. Enforcement
is in the hands of the police but proceedings can be initiated by any member
of the public who believes that an offence has been committed. The Act
does not provide powers of entry upon private premises ; most prosecutions,
therefore, are brought by the animal welfare societies as a result of their
inspectors’ enquiries following a complaint from a member of the public
who may have seen what he believed to be an offence or may have heard
the cries of the animal or animals concerned. It is thus a valid criticism
of the Act that it provides no express safeguard for the welfare of animals
which are kept on private premises (other than those covered by the minor
legislation) which cannot be overlooked or overheard from a public place
or from someone else’s property. A further criticism of the Act is that
action is only possible after an offence has been committed; this, it is
said, limits its deterrent effect.

24. But, despite these and other criticisms, the Act is still the chief
instrument of the animal welfare movement in bringing cases against alleged
offenders. ‘To succeed it is necessary for the prosecution to prove to the
satisfaction of the Court that the accused knowingly caused or allowed
cruelty to occur and that such cruelty was substantial. The Act specifically
includes mental as well as physical suffering by the use of the words
“infuriate ”’ and “terrify” but it does not mention lesser degrees of mental
suffering. It is for the Courts to decide whether or not unnecessary suffering
within the terms of the Act has occurred and it is this which presents what
is acknowledged to be the greatest difficulty. The problem revolves around
the need for the prosecution to produce veterinary testimony that suffering
occurred. Clearly there are a great many cases where veterinary knowledge
is insufficient to give an unequivocal expert opinion.

8

CHAPTER 4

THE WELFARE OF ANIMALS

25. Our terms of reference require us to consider the standards of
“ welfare’ of domestic animals that should be regarded as acceptable
under systems of intensive husbandry. Welfare is a wide term that embraces
both the physical and mental well-being of the animal. Any attempt to
evaluate welfare therefore must take into account the scientific evidence
available concerning the feelings of animals that can be derived from their
structure and functions and also from their behaviour.

26. Nobody can experience the feelings of another individual, however
well that person may be known to them. They can be evaluated only by
analogy with one’s own feelings, from what that person tells us, and from
one’s own observation of his looks, behaviour and health. The evaluation
of the feelings of an animal similarly must rest on analogy with our own
and must be derived from observation of the cries, expression, reactions,
behaviour, health and productivity of the animal. The better we know a
person the more fully we can appreciate his feelings; we cannot estimate
those of a stranger as well as we can those of a friend and we are still
less able to appreciate those of a person of alien race and culture. We
are correspondingly even less competent to appreciate those of an animal,
which cannot communicate verbally and whose expression, reactions and
behaviour we are much less able to interpret. Nevertheless, our under-
standing of their feelings is not different in kind, but rather in degree,
from that which we form of a fellow human being. Animals show
unmistakable signs of suffering from pain, exhaustion, fright, frustration,
and so forth and the better we are acquainted with them the more readily
we can detect these signs. Judgement of the severity of their suffering must
be subjective.

27. There are sound anatomical and physiological grounds for accepting
that domestic mammals and birds experience the same kinds of sensations
as we do: the structure of a mammal’s nervous system is essentially similar
to that of man and the function of the ductless glands is known to be com-
parable. The sensations certainly differ in degree; for example the senses
of hearing and smell may be much better developed in some animals than
in man. It is probable, however, that imaginative anticipation, which plays
such a large part in human suffering, is incomparably less well developed
in most animals. They appear to live much more in the present and their
suffering to be correspondingly more transitory, although many animals can
both remember the past and fear the future to some extent. It is justifiable
to assume that the sufferings of animals are not identical with those of
human beings ; it is equally justifiable to assume that they suffer in similar
ways; the valid point where the line should be drawn between these two
extremes is very difficult to determine and must be a matter of balanced
judgment. It is extremely important to realise this because the whole of
our recommendations ultimately must rest on such judgments.

9
30234 A5

28. The scientific evidence bearing on the sensations and sufferings of
animals is derived from anatomy and physiology on the one hand and from
ethology, the science of animal behaviour, on the other. We have had before
us the findings of the Departmental Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals
(Cmd. 8266 1951, paras. 36-42) and of the Departmental Committee on
Experiments on Animals (Cmnd. 2641 1965, Chap. 11 paras. 179-183) and
we reproduce the relevant sections of these in Appendices IV and V. One
of our members (Dr. W. H. Thorpe), who has expert knowledge of this
subject, has prepared a paper for us which we reproduce as Appendix III.
Since, in general, we agree with the conclusions regarding the feelings of
animals contained in these papers, it is unnecessary to recapitulate the
evidence for them here. We accept that although pain, suffering and stress
are certainly not identical in animals and men, there are sound reasons for
believing that they are substantial in domestic animals and that there is no
justification for disregarding them. We accept that amongst domestic
mammals and birds there is no scientific evidence that any single species is
more sensitive than another. We accept that animals can experience
emotions such as rage, fear, apprehension, frustration and pleasure, though
they do display different degrees and types of intelligence which may affect
the reaction to particular stress-causing circumstances.*

29. We are concerned with the welfare of the animal throughout what
may be the duration of its life, whereas the matters of primary concern
to the Departmental Committees quoted were mainly of shorter term. We,
for our part, must pay special attention to the possible cumulative effect
on the animal of the long continuance of conditions which might be toler-
able or even acceptable, in the short term. Factors producing prolonged
stress, discomfort or deprivation must weigh heavily with us and may, on
occasion, be of much more significance for the total welfare of the animal
than more acute, but transitory, suffering. Therefore, we have been impressed
by the evidence to be derived from the study of the behaviour of the
animal. We recognise that the scientific information available concerning the
behaviour of domestic animals is inadequate in many respects for our pur-
poses and that much further work in this field is required before we can
be satisfied as to their welfare. We are of opinion also that such information
could be of great economic value to the industry. We consider that this is
a field of scientific research in relation to animal husbandry which has not
attracted the attention which it deserves and that opportunities should be
sought to encourage its development in this country.

30. Many witnesses have represented to us that the growth rate of an
animal for meat or the egg production of a laying hen are the only reliable
objective measures of their welfare. It is claimed that suffering of any kind
is reflected by a corresponding fali in productivity. The argument is that
in the absence of any scientific method of evaluating whether an animal is

* We are impressed by the opinion recently expressed by Lord Brain who said :—

‘““T personally can see no reason for conceding mind to my fellow men and denying it
to animals .... Mental functions, rightly viewed, are but servants of the impulses and
emotions by which we live, and these, the springs of life, are surely diencephalic in their
neurological location. Since the diencephalon is well developed in animals and birds, I
at least cannot doubt that the interests and activities of animals are correlated with
awareness and feelings in the same way as my own, and which may be, for ought I know,
just as vivid.”

10

suffering, its continued productivity should be taken as decisive evidence that
it is not. This is an over-simplified and incomplete view and we reject
it. It is true that a satisfactory growth or egg production rate is a reliable
guide to the welfare of the animal in certain respects—for example that
it is being well-fed—but it is inadequate in other respects. Growth, on
occasion, can be a pathological symptom, although it is more often a mark
of health. Growth rate and condition, as witnessed by a good coat or
plumage, alertness, bright eyes and contentedness, taken altogether are a better
guide, perhaps the best objective measure available, but are not inconsis-
tent with periods of acute, but transitory, physical or mental suffering. We
consider that it is morally incumbent upon us to give the animal the benefit
of the doubt and to protect it so far as is possible from conditions that may
be reasonably supposed to cause it suffering, though this cannot be proved.
Frequently it happens that a given system of husbandry has some charac-
teristics which are likely to operate to the benefit of the animal, as com-
pared to other systems, and other characteristics which are likely to be to
its disadvantage and in such circumstances a difficult judgement of the
balance of advantages and disadvantages has to be made. Such judgements
made on inadequate evidence will require to be reviewed in the future
when more information is available. We are very conscious of this pro-
visional nature of some of our recommendations and have taken into account
the need of machinery for their review.

31. A principal cause of suffering in animals, as it is in men, is disease.
Many veterinary witnesses have drawn our attention to this and to the
necessity of taking it into account fully in assessing the welfare of animals.
We have been impressed with this evidence and accept the major importance
of the disease risk in evaluating the welfare of an animal under any system
of husbandry. Accordingly, we lay stress on the incidence of disease and
on the guarantees that a sick animal will be quickly recognised and appro-
priately treated or slaughtered. Any given intensive system of husbandry
may, or may not, be satisfactory in one or both of these respects. Some
compare favourably with traditional methods with regard to disease, others
compare unfavourably. When poultry and pigs are allowed access to an out-
side run, it is difficult to avoid a steady build-up of worm eggs from faecal
contamination, with the rate increasing in periods of warm, damp weather.
It has been found that the pig lungworm can only survive in outside runs
where the intermediate hosts, several species of earthworms, are present.
Once infection is established in a population of earthworms it is very diffi-
cult to eliminate it except by resting the land for two years. It is certain
that the pig stomach worm survives better outdoors, since serious infections
are seen almost entirely in breeding stock kept on “ pig-sick” land. In a
similar manner, some of the troublesome internal parasites of poultry, such
as the tapeworms and gapeworm, require various intermediate hosts which
are only available to birds given outside runs. Even roundworms and
coccidia, which may become established in birds kept indoors, are very mucpb.
more effectively dealt with in their free-living forms inside a building than
when the soil becomes contaminated. Recent surveys of disease incidence in
broilers in this country have emphasised how good husbandry and preven-
tative measures can keep suffering and losses at a very low level in these
closely controlled stocks.

1
30234 A6

32. On the other hand, it is a fact that the recent marked increase in
intensively reared beef, especially from animals gathered from a variety of
sources, has resulted in a higher incidence of pneumonia and of enteric
infections, particularly in young stock. Advances in knowledge of ventilation
needs, along with the production of effective vaccines for protection against
salmonellosis, are already markedly reducing these hazards. Each system
must be considered individually in relation to this very important factor
concerning the welfare of the animal. The assessment of any system is com-
plicated further by the part which good stockmanship plays in the quick
recognition of sickness in an animal. Hence it is meaningless to try to
approve or condemn intensive systems in general on this criterion ; an indivi-
dual judgement must be made on each system as to the balance of advantage
in relation to the chief diseases to which the animal is prone.

33. Another cause of acute suffering in animals arises from accidents
and attack by predators. These may or may not relate to the system of
husbandry. Generally, domestication and increasingly close confinement has
tended to reduce, and in many cases to eliminate, attack by predators.
Similarly, domestication has probably tended overall to reduce suffering. It
has certainly resulted in an injured animal usually being quickly recognised
and appropriately treated, whereas the wild animal would have been
exposed to a slow death. Yet each system of husbandry has its own
hazards, which must be evaluated. Fire risks provide a particular hazard
where large numbers of animals are housed in a single building and the
possibility of their release in emergency is correspondingly small. Failure of
services in controlled environment houses and with automatic feed systems
are obvious risks, which an automatic warning device can mitigate. Slippery
floors and the chance of entanglement or strangulation in caged or tethered
animals are hazards requiring attention.

34. Mutilation is also practised on animals kept intensively. We dislike
all such practices in principle. We dislike particularly mutilations which
result in a permanent disability, affecting the normal behaviour of the
animal and we do not regard such mutilations as permissible simply because
they may be judged necessary to counter a defect in the system of husbandry.
We are prepared to tolerate mutilation only where the overall advantage
to the animal, its fellows, or the safety of man, is unmistakable. In
accepting this we assume that all possible means to alleviate the suffering
occasioned have been taken, including performance of the operation at the
optimum age, with suitable safeguards as to the skill of the operator, and
the use of adequate equipment, and of such anaesthetics, analgesics and
sterile precautions as may be indicated.

35. Wanton cruelty, through intent or neglect, is a hazard to which the
intensively kept animal is no more, and probably is less, liable than any other.

36. Domestication necessarily involves some measure of restraint or con-
finement, varying from near freedom to close confinement in a cage or stall.
Although close confinement of some animals has been traditional, it is
characteristic of all intensive systems and it is in them that it is encountered
on the largest scale and in the most rigorous forms. The problem is to
determine the measure of restraint or confinement which is acceptable for
a particular species, or strain within the species, under a given system of
management. Confinement is not necessarily undesirable for the welfare

12

of the animal. It may well confer advantages, notably shelter from the
weather and freedom from predators and bullying, three of the major
hardships to which the wild animal is exposed. These advantages must be
weighed against the disadvantages to the animal. The optimum will vary
for each kind of animal, depending on its behavioural urges, and may be
different for each breed, age and sex. Some breeds are much better adapted
than others to confinement. This is particularly true of poultry, where the
application of genetical principles to their breeding has resulted in the pro-
duction of strains specially adapted to the various large-scale systems of
husbandry. Similar principles are being applied, and are likely to continue
to be applied, to other animals, though the process of producing highly
adapted breeds of domestic mammals is much slower. Hence the kind of
animal employed has to be taken into account in deciding the degree of
confinement that is acceptable. Close confinement reasonably may be
supposed to be less irksome to an individual animal which has been reared
from birth under such conditions (though we think it would be wrong to
suppose complete adaptability) than to one which has been accustomed
to a large measure of freedom and is then closely restrained. Again, close
confinement, preventing free exercise and play, may be considered more
restrictive on the behaviour pattern of a young animal than on an adult.
The degree to which the behavioural urges of the animal are frustrated
under the particular conditions of the confinement, must be a major con-
sideration in determining its acceptability or otherwise.

37. Another factor which should be taken into consideration is the
duration of confinement. In principle we disapprove of a degree of con-
finement of an animal which necessarily frustrates most of the major activities
which make up its natural behaviour and we do not consider such confine-
ment or restraint permissible over a long period unless the other advantages
thereby conferred upon the animal are likely to be very substantial. An
animal should at least have sufficient freedom of movement to be able
without difficulty, to turn round, groom itself, get up, lie down and stretch
its limbs.

38. All farm animals belong to species that have a fairly highly
organised social behaviour pattern, either as a family or as a larger flock or
herd. Consequently they need companionship and are likely to suffer from
solitary confinement. This applies in varying degrees to the different species
but is most marked in the ruminants. Companionship also appears to be
more important for the young animal than for the adult. This factor requires
careful consideration, especially in systems of management involving individual
separation.

39. Clearly an animal must be provided with adequate food and drink
to prevent it suffering from hunger and thirst. Moreover, its diet should
be such as to maintain it in full health and vigour. We do not consider
a diet permissible that is known to be deficient in some component or
components necessary to maintain the animal in full health, whether or not
this leads to an overt pathological condition, nor do we consider permissible
the inclusion in the diet of components calculated to upset the normal
functions of the animal, except in so far as these may be necessary under
veterinary prescription for the prevention or treatment of disease. We
have considered antibiotics and other food additives to see what implications

13
30234 A7

there might be for the welfare of animals. With antibiotics, we conclude
that on balance the effects are more likely to be beneficial than adverse:
the feeding of antibiotics during the first few weeks of life is sometimes
advisable to overcome infection in the young animal. We are satisfied that
the feeding of antibiotics as growth stimulants to poultry does not have
any immediate effect on the welfare of the individual animal. We are
unable to express an opinion on the question of long term indirect effects
but we understand that this problem is under review by the competent
authorities. The feeding of synthetic oestrogens is no longer generally
practised, though pellet implantations are used in some poultry (not broilers)
and to a lesser extent in beef cattle and fattening sheep. We do not think
the practice has adverse effects on the welfare of the animal. Mineral
additives are sometimes used in animal feedingstuffs as growth stimulants
or with the intention of correcting existing deficiencies. We feel some
concern over this practice ; negligence or misunderstanding in the use of such
feedingstuffs can cause suffering. We recommend that the quantities of
mineral additives in manufactured feedingstuffs be clearly stated on the
container. We further recommend that the feeding of arsenical compounds
to stock should be prohibited save on veterinary prescription for treatment.

40. We consider that the floors of buildings or cages should be so con-
structed that the animals can stand, move and rest in reasonable comfort.
The animal should be able to feel secure when it is on its feet. The floor
should not be such as to produce undue strain on the legs or feet or to result
in malformation of them.

41. Ventilation becomes increasingly important with higher densities of
animals housed and may be of critical effect on their health and comfort in
many systems of intensive husbandry. In houses where the heating or
insulation is inadequate there may be a tendency to reduce the ventilation
below the limit of adequacy for the purpose of maintaining the temperature.
Failure of the ventilation system where it is mechanical can be disastrous to
the animals. An automatic warning system for drawing attention to such
failure is desirable, as we have stated in paragraph 33, together with provision
for emergency ventilation.

42. Where large numbers of animals are concentrated in buildings the
possibility of death, panic and suffering should fire occur is very much
increased, We believe this is a factor which needs to be borne in mind in
the design of buildings, not only as regards the reduction of fire risk and
the provision of appliances, but also as regards evacuating the animals should
fire occur. In those cases where planning permission has to be obtained for
farm buildings the question of fire risk is examined by the competent local
authorities, but there are many intensive buildings which do not come
within planning control.

43. Environmental temperature is particularly important to the animal
when it is confined and cannot take exercise to warm itself or move to a
cooler place. Animals thrive best in a comparatively narrow temperature
range about the optimum, which varies from species to species, from breed to
breed, and according to age. Careful attention needs to be paid to extremes
of temperature, particularly for some species under certain systems of
management to which we will refer.

14

44. Lighting affects the animal’s welfare both directly and indirectly.
Animals are adapted to the alternation of day and night and they should
have a reasonable period of illumination each day and a reasonable period
of darkness to rest. The requirements of the species vary according to whether
they are diurnal or nocturnal in habit; for example, the pig in the wild
state is at least a partly nocturnal animal and the domestic pig is probably
contented with less light than other domestic animals. The intensity of
illumination is probably less critical, since most animals have considerable
powers of adaptation to light intensity, but it should be at least adequate
to enable the animal to move about and feed in comfort. Some witnesses
have represented to us that it is a hardship for the animal to be deprived
of sunlight or daylight and exposed only to artificial light but we are not
satisfied of the validity of this claim and consider that the intensity, rather
than the source of the illumination, is the operative factor. Animals in
confinement tend to be quieter and less excitable at low intensities, hence the
tendency to reduce the illumination in some intensive systems of manage-
ment. It is essential, however, that adequate illumination should be avail-
able for proper routine inspection of all the animals. Such inspection should
take place preferably at least twice a day and never less than once. We
are not prepared to tolerate any system where such inspection is likely to
be ineffective in recognising sick or injured animals, either through inadequate
illumination, over-crowding or any other cause.

45. Most animals kept in confinement are liable to develop undesirable
habits or “ vices” and these tend to be particularly prevalent under the dense
stocking rates of intensive systems. The most common cases are fighting,
bullying, feather-picking and cannibalism, tail and ear biting and, with
calves, navel sucking. Such vices can result in acute suffering for the victims
and measures need to be taken to prevent or minimise them. Sometimes
these vices are encouraged by particular systems of management, or by bad
stockmanship and can be reduced or eliminated by correcting the faults in
management, or by utilising a more tractable strain. At other times they can
be eradicated by culling the culprits; but they require to be taken into
consideration in judging the merits or defects of most intensive systems.

46. Above and beyond all these matters, important and relevant though
each is, stands the fact that modern, intensive animal production methods
most markedly increase the responsibility of those who use them towards
the animals in their charge. If any creature is wholly and continuously
under control, we believe that this total human responsibility must be
acknowledged, and that there is widespread public concern that it be seen to
be acknowledged. Changing patterns of husbandry may mean varying
degrees of frustration and discomfort to animals whose normal patterns of
behaviour are still imperfectly understood. We are certain that a beginning
must be made to safeguard their welfare. This we attempt in what follows.

30234 A8

CHAPTER 5

DOMESTIC FOWL

47. The fowl has been domesticated for at least 4,000 years and has
been subject to human selection for so long that it is difficult to be sure of
its precise origin. It certainly comes from the wild jungle fowl of India and
Burma and probably from the Burmese Red Jungle Fowl. Despite the large
number of specialised breeds that have been produced and the speed with
which in recent years the application of genetical principles to breeding has
resulted in the production of hybrids specially adapted to high production
under intensive methods of husbandry, the behaviour pattern of the modern
bird remains essentially that of its wild ancestors. It is still a bird of
gregarious habits, that establishes and maintains a high degree of social
order within the group, the members of which can recognise each other and
communicate vocally. Although the birds spend most of the day on the
ground scratching and hunting for food, they can and do fly. Even the
modern hybrid can fly and will do so if the situation requires it, contrary
to some assertions we have heard. Maternal care for, and instruction of,
the young is highly developed.

48. There are more poultry on our farms than any other form of livestock.
The agricultural census of June 1965 showed the poultry flock in Great
Britain to number nearly 100 million. The laying stock consisted of about
45 million, of which probably 80 per cent. were kept under systems that
can be regarded as intensive. There were about 27 million table birds, nearly
all broilers. The total annual value of output of poultry products in 1964-65
was about £230 millions, exceeding that of pigs or sheep and being less in
value only to milk, and fat cattle, among farm produce.

LAYING HENS

49. Until the Second World War, the large-scale management of poultry,
as distinct from that of barnyard birds, was on free range or semi-intensive
systems. Hence these have come to be regarded as “traditional ”. Normally
the birds had a house, in which they could be shut up at night or in bad
weather, and had free access to a run of variable size and type. This area
often was too small in relation to the number of birds using it and was
liable to become very dirty and muddy in wet weather. It was likely
to become a chronic source of infection by internal parasites unless rested
and the birds moved frequently to new ground.

50. This system of husbandry, characterised by the birds having access
to the open air, has been largely superseded within the last 30 years by more
specialised and intensive methods in which the birds are kept permanently
housed. ‘Today about 85 per cent. of the eggs consumed in Great Britain
are produced from indoor flocks. The remainder are from flocks that are
commonly called “free range”, the management of which has changed little
from pre-war days and which is still open to the same objections.

16

51. Intensive systems of egg production fall into two main categories ;
those using battery cages and those in which the birds are loose housed,
predominantly on deep litter but occasionally entirely on wire mesh or slats
or a combination of these. The battery system was known in both the
U.S.A. and in England as early as the 1920s but it did not develop on a
significant scale until the post-war period. However, it did find limited
popularity with specialist poultry keepers, who believed that with correct
nutrition and expert management the system could be successful. The
advantages claimed were that by eliminating the peck order it increased
production from the less aggressive birds, and that it made possible the
identification and culling of the poor layers.

52. It was not, however, until the late 1940s that the battery cage
achieved any wide recognition among poultry keepers. When it did, the
usual practice was to keep the birds in single cages and it was fashionable
for mechanical feeding and watering to be installed. Thus the capital costs
per bird housed tended to be high. The advent of new, high-performance
hybrid strains of laying bird, weighing rather less than the traditional breeds,
led to a reduction in capital costs. Particularly, when it was realised that
more than one bird could profitably be kept in one cage, the capital outlay
per bird housed became far more attractive. This innovation came in the mid
1950s and since then the system has steadily expanded at the expense of
other systems. At present 35 per cent. of our birds are kept in battery
cages, almost invariably with more than one bird per cage. The trend towards
increasing numbers per cage has continued, especially in the last five years,
and it is now common for three, four or more birds to be kept together.
This has been accompanied by a steady reduction in the space allowed per
bird. The original pre-war design of cage gave the bird of those days,
which weighed about 6 lb., roughly 2 square feet of floor space. With the
use of multiple cages and smaller breeds weighing between 4 and 5 lb.
producers now think it profitable to reduce the allowance per bird to as little
as 4+ square foot. This is the commonly accepted minimum below which it is
believed that overall performance, and thus profitability, will fall.

53. In the early 1940s loose housing with deep litter developed from the
systems used mainly in the U.S.A. The intention was to simplify the
cleaning out of the house with consequential saving of labour. The system
was introduced into Great Britain around 1947 and spread rapidly, one of
the main factors being the relative cheapness with which premises could
be converted for the purpose and the high capital cost of the battery cage
at that time. Today nearly half of our laying stock is kept under loose
housing systems.

54. Loose housing involves two great practical difficulties in management.
The first is the risk of so-called “vices”, feather picking and cannibalism.
The second is concerned with the litter itself where the deep litter system
is used. Often the necessary materials, straw, sawdust, wood-shavings or
chippings, may be difficult and expensive to obtain with a consequent neces-
sity to economise. In addition, if conditions are such that the litter becomes
wet, resulting in the build-up of disease, serious losses can occur. Some
producers use completely slatted or wire floors for large colonies of birds in
order to overcome this difficulty. The droppings fall through to a pit

17

or the floor and build up, to be removed at long intervals. These modifica-
tions are not generally accepted as successful. Defeathering is common and
probably a manifestation of the stress factors which frequently result in
lower production.

55. Intensive systems of egg production have figured largely in the
evidence which has been presented to us. This was to be expected, both
because the poultry industry represents the most highly developed form of
intensification in farming at present and because of the wide use of the
battery cage, which many people find repugnant. Some of the evidence we
have considered from organisations and individuals interested in animal
welfare has advocated the complete banning of intensive poultry systems and
a return to free range. Other witnesses recognised this as impracticable
from the economic point of view, from the land use aspect, and of doubtful
advantage for the welfare of the animals, but some of these expressed a
strong preference for deep litter rather than batteries. We accept that it is no
longer practicable to resort to free range systems; and we believe that,
subject to the conditions and improvements which we shall recommend, the
intensive systems cater adequately for the welfare of the animals. Accord-
ingly we have directed our efforts to comparing the intensive systems and
deciding how these could be improved.

56. Criticism of the use of the battery cage has recurred on a number of
occasions in the submitted evidence relating to laying poultry. We have
already expressed our disapproval in principle of caging or close confinement
of an animal for long periods. (Paragraph 37.) It was incumbent upon us,
however, to enquire fully into the advantages and disadvantages of the
system. ‘The only acceptable alternative and the only one that could provide
for egg production on the requisite scale to meet the national demand is the
loose housing system, so that reduction in numbers of battery hens would in
all probability tend to be compensated by a corresponding increase in hens
under loose housing. Our recommendations must rest, therefore, on a
judgment of the relative merits of these two systems as practised at present
and as they might be if the modifications we envisage were adopted.

57. First, it must be noted that the degree of confinement to which the
battery hen is subjected is extremely close and imposes strict limitation of
the normal behaviour pattern of the bird. Cages containing two or three
birds and measuring 12-14 inches wide and 17 inches deep are commonly
used. Under such circumstances the birds cannot stretch their wings, move
without touching one another or stand fully upright at the rear of the cage.
Several of our witnesses have pointed out that it is illogical that the domestic
hen should be excluded from the provisions of the Protection of Birds Act
1954, which prohibits the keeping of birds in cages where they cannot stretch
their wings.

58. Much of the ingrained behaviour pattern is frustrated by caging.
The normal reproductive pattern of mating, hatching and rearing young is
prevented and the only reproductive urge permitted is laying. They cannot
fly, scratch, perch or walk freely. Preening is difficult and dust-bathing
impossible. On the other hand, it has been represented to us that in the
conditions of controlled environment, ample food supply, and freedom from

18

predators and external parasites the bird does not need or desire to behave
in this way. We do not find this an entirely convincing argument. We accept
the view that domesticated strains in general, and certain strains in particular,
are much better adapted to caging than their wild ancestors would be, and
doubtless suffer correspondingly less frustration, but we believe that the
basic behavioural urges are there, though they may not be so compelling and
the stimuli that would normally evoke them may be eliminated to a large
extent. The caged bird, which is permitted only to fulfil the instinctive
urges to eat and drink, to sleep, to lay and to communicate vocally with its
fellows, would appear to be exposed to considerable frustration.

59. In view of this catalogue of criticisms loose housing may appear,
at first sight, greatly preferable to caging. A well run deep litter house seems
to be comfortable for the birds. They are free to exercise their legs and
wings, to preen and they can occupy themselves by scratching in the litter
in search of food and by dust-bathing. However, the deep litter system has
two major disadvantages.

60. First, it is of utmost importance, but in practice not easy to achieve, that
the litter on which the birds stand should at all times be dry. This is the crucial
factor in the management of a deep litter system and it is essential that the
type of litter and the ventilation and stocking of the house should be such as
to ensure that the litter never becomes sodden. It is, of course, particularly
difficult to achieve this in those parts of the country where the climate is
humid. If there should be a failure in maintaining the litter in good con-
dition, the risk of disease, in particular of coccidiosis, becomes serious.

61. Secondly, the bird is not provided with protection from its fellows.
Unfortunately, there is no simple and humane way at present of ensuring
that stress will not be caused as a result of the social order under loose
housing systems. The phenomenon of the peck order is well known and has
been investigated by many scientists. It is known to be a major feature of
the social life of the fowl and depends on the ability of the individual bird to
recognise large numbers of its fellows. A group of birds institutes a strict
social order within which each member knows its own position; it knows
which of its fellows it must avoid and which it can itself browbeat with
impunity. The establishment of this social order takes place soon after a
number of birds are put together, by means of a series of individual conflicts
which may sometimes go as far as actual battle but more generally are
contests of will terminated by the retreat of the inferior bird. Under natural
conditions and free range, once this order is established the inferior fowl will
always avoid conflict or will flee from an attack by a superior bird. But
with intensive loose housing, escape or avoiding action is often impossible ;
inferior birds suffer stress which may be reflected in performance, and are
sometimes injured.

62. It is on the basis of these considerations that we have had to decide
whether or not to accede to the wishes of the many individuals and organisa-
tions that have urged the abolition of the battery cage. This is the most
difficult of the problems we have had to resolve and one to which we have
given prolonged and careful consideration. The problem is to determine
the balance of advantage for the bird.

19

63. Our conclusion is that, in the light of present knowledge, a modified
battery system may be as good as or better than loose housing. This is a
decision which we make with some reluctance ; but the facts at our disposal
do not justify the conclusion that at this moment in time the battery cage
should be prohibited. Deep litter is the only practicable alternative and
the risks to the bird inherent to this system, as it exists today, in our
judgment are as great as the deprivations of the battery. Furthermore, the
modification of the battery system to ameliorate its more objectionable
features is attainable in the short term more readily than with deep litter.
It is, in our view, absolutely essential that further research work be put
in hand forthwith specifically on the behaviour of the battery hen under
the new conditions. It is equally urgent that research be undertaken with
the object of improving the deep litter system so that it may, as soon as
possible, become a safe and secure alternative method. In the light of this
work and any further developments in this field, we recommend that the
use of the modified battery be kept under review by the statutory Farm
Animal Welfare Standing Advisory Committee (see Ch. 11).

BATTERY CAGES

64. Our recommendation that the battery cage system should be per-
mitted to continue for the time being is conditional on certain basic standards
being applied to it. These would, we believe, mitigate the more objection-
able features of the system which are found at present, particularly in its
most extreme forms.

65. Both from our own observations, and from a study of the evidence
before us, we believe that the condition of the birds is likely to be satis-
factory where there are no more than three birds in the cage. There appears
to be the possibility of cannibalism, although the evidence for this is con-
flicting, when there are four to six birds in a cage, and above six birds per
cage there is ample evidence to show the existence of a peck order leading
to stress and injury. We recommend that cages for laying poultry should
not contain more than three birds.

66. The welfare of the bird in a cage is closely related to the amount
of space which it enjoys. A treble cage appears to us preferable to a single
one because even though there may be less floor area per bird, the total
amount of room available to an individual bird is greater. We do not
consider this sufficiently important to justify a recommendation that single
and double cages should be prohibited but we think, generally speaking,
that double or treble ones are preferable to single ones. In practice, the
single bird cage is only rarely used nowadays. In considering the numbers
of birds which the cage should contain we have also borne in mind the
necessity of adequate inspection. We believe that with batteries inspection
is easier with fewer birds per cage and we consider that above three it
becomes increasingly difficult to ensure that each bird is carefully looked at
once or twice daily.

67. The dimensions of the cage should be sufficient to enable the bird
to stand upright at the point where the roof is lowest and to stretch a wing
comfortably. We recommend that the three bird cage should measure not

20

less than 20 inches wide and 17 inches deep and have an average height of
18 inches with the lowest part not less than 16 inches. For two birds the
width should be 16 inches and for one bird 12 inches; the other minimum
dimensions should be the same in both cases.

68. The construction of the cage is also of considerable importance to
the comfort of the bird, particularly the floor, which in present installations
is often unsatisfactory. The floor of the cage should be such that the bird
can stand comfortably. In our opinion this precludes the use of fine gauge
wire netting of a hexagonal pattern which the bird’s foot is not well adapted
to grip. Fine gauge wires have the additional disadvantage of sagging
beneath the weight of the bird, thus throwing increased strain upon its foot.
We recommend that the floor of the cage should consist of metal mesh
of a rectangular pattern. The gauge should be no finer than No. 10. A
sloping floor is an essential feature of the battery cage, enabling the eggs
to roll forward to the collecting tray; the incline commonly used is one
inch in five. It has been argued that this is uncomfortable for the bird
and it is probably true that with unsatisfactory floors this does increase the
strain. But with the specifications we suggest we consider that the bird
should be able to keep a satisfactory footing on this gradient.

69. The design of purpose built battery houses is still being improved in
the light of experience. Many of those in use are ill-fitted to the purpose.
Faults are even more apparent in many converted buildings. Increasingly
competitive markets have tended to result in too many cages being squeezed
into a building and too many birds into each cage.

70. Ventilation is a vital factor in the welfare of intensively kept poultry,
as in all intensive systems of animal husbandry, and is, perhaps, even more
critical with deep litter systems of poultry husbandry than with batteries.
Birds require a relatively large supply of fresh air in proportion to their
body weight and inadequate ventilation is a potent predisposing factor for
respiratory diseases, to which intensively kept fowl are prone. The optimum
varies with climatic conditions but, with mechanical ventilation, the accepted
standard amongst good managers at present is to have plant capable of
regulation up to a rate of two cubic feet per minute per lb. liveweight
housed and it seems to us that this is a suitable specification.

71. We have also been disturbed in studying existing battery systems at
the lay-out of the tiers of cages. It is not uncommon to find tiers of four
cages, one above the other on either side of a three or four foot gangway in a
dimly lit house. Under these circumstances, the birds in the lower tiers
often receive much less light than their fellows and their outlook is very
limited indeed. The birds in the lowermost tier are difficult to see and
this tends to deter efficient inspection of these cages.

72. The stepped or Californian system, where the cages are ranged in
steps above a central dropping pit, appears to be a much more acceptable
arrangement than vertical tiers. This gives the birds more light and a far
more favourable outlook and it enables stockmen to carry out their duties
satisfactorily.

73. We do not consider that we would be justified in recommending the
abolition of vertically tiered cages although we prefer the Californian system.

21

We recommend that vertical tiers should be modified to meet our objections _
and this would be achieved if it were made mandatory for the gangway
in front of any vertical tier to be at least two-thirds as wide as the tier
is high and for the floor of the bottom cages to be at least 12 inches above
the floor level of the gangway. We recommend that tiers be limited to not
more than 3 cages above any one level because we consider this is the
maximum which can be adequately inspected.

Deep LITTER

74. Properly managed, the deep litter system of loose housing is a good
method of housing poultry. We have been assured that in competent hands
it can be commercially viable in competition with highly intensive battery
cages. Unfortunately, when the deep litter system fails, usually for one
of two reasons stated earlier, the resultant suffering is likely to be more
extensive than with the battery cage. Although we propose to recommend
certain standards for deep litter, we should say at the outset that much
of the argument revolves around the effectiveness of management; good
management is far more important to success with deep litter than is the
case with batteries. Many producers have admitted to us that a potent
reason for their changing from deep litter to battery cages has been the
difficulty of getting skilled labour. Our intention in setting standards is to
provide the circumstances in which satisfactory conditions for the birds can
be achieved with average management.

75. Some expert witnesses have told us that it is possible under the deep
litter system to avoid pecking and cannibalism without resorting to de-
beaking. We have seen well-managed deep litter houses in which de-beaking
‘vas found to be unnecessary.

76. It is essential both that the standard of management should be
adequate and that the housing and facilities should be properly designed and
maintained. The ventilation must be adequate and uniform. The food must
be sufficient, correctly balanced and readily accessible to all the birds;
the food troughs and watering points must be sufficient in number and
properly distributed. Other aspects of the lay-out, for instance, the height
and siting of the nest-boxes, and the arrangement of any raised slatted or
wire-floored area in relation to the rest of the facilities, can be of crucial
importance.

77. It is commonly recognised that cannibalism can be prevented or
limited by a reduction of the light intensity in the house. We understand
this approach but we would not want our recommendations to result in
the general adoption of dim lighting and we believe that there are other
effective means of avoiding cannibalism.

78. The breed or strain of bird also plays a major part in the avoidance
of vice. Certain light weight hybrids are known to be more nervous and
prone to pecking than heavier varieties. Docility is recognised as one
of the economically desirable characteristics by some breeders and progress
is being made in the production of strains which combine it with other
desirable qualities. Yet, there are many excitable and vice-prone strains in
use and it is evident that genetic improvement in this will take time.

79. ‘The amount of space per bird allowed under deep litter systems
has a great bearing on the success of the unit and is relevant, both to the

22

avoidance of vice and to the maintenance of satisfactory litter. We recom-
mend that a space allocation of 3 square feet per bird is the minimum
which should be allowed where the flooring is deep litter alone. Where
part of the area is wire-floored or slatted this should not exceed one-third of
the total and the minimum allowance overall should be 24 square feet
per bird.

80. Ventilation is the other important factor in maintaining dry litter
but it is difficult to suggest hard and fast standards. Where ventilation
is entirely mechanical the capacity should be sufficient for a rate of 2 cubic
feet per minute per lb. liveweight housed, but mixed systems or totally natural
ventilation are frequent with loose housing. Rather than specify detailed
standards, we submit that excessively damp litter should be regarded as
evidence of a faulty management and that the system requires overhauling.

81. Loose housed colonies on wire floors, or wholly slatted floors, which
we mentioned briefly in paragraph 54, have not generally proved successful,
despite their apparent attractiveness in labour saving. Although stock can
be housed at greater densities than in deep litter, in practice returns tend
to be diminished, probably because of frustrations and social stresses not
occasioned by the latter. We see little to commend in this form of housing.
It seems almost impossible to run successfully without de-beaking and we
have no hesitation in recommending that loose housing on wire floors should
be prohibited.

82. The lighting of poultry houses of all types is of great importance
for efficient inspection of the birds. We recommend that the provision
of lighting in the building bright enough for all the birds to be seen clearly
for this purpose should be mandatory.

83. It is now quite common for a single stockman to be responsible for
as many as 10,000 or more birds. The consequent saving in labour has been
brought about by standardisation and mechanisation. This trend is not
in itself objectionable but we think it important that certain inherent dangers
should be recognised. We believe that all stock should be inspected at least
once a day, and preferably twice, and that this should be the standard
management practice of all poultry keepers.

84. We are concerned about the risk of mechanical failure in very large,
highly mechanised and controlled environment houses especially. We think
attention should be given to two aspects of this, depending on the size of the
unit concerned. Firstly, we think it important that provision should be made
for break-down of the supply in all units totally dependent on electrical power.
There are available simple cut-out alarms which could be installed and
which provide warning to the producer when his electric current has failed.
Provided there is warning, the necessary services could be provided manually
in the event of mechanical failure in many units, and evidence that this
can be done with the resources available should be required. Otherwise,
especially with large houses containing great concentrations of stock, where
the labour and other resources available are inadequate for such an emer-
gency, we think the provision of stand-by plant to be of the greatest
importance.

85. Windowless houses are common and, though many find them
aesthetically unattractive, we have no evidence to support the argument that

2a

lack of sunlight is deleterious to the well-being of the bird. Nor do we find
that the practices of artificially adjusted day-length are harmful. It has
long been common in egg production to give the birds a greater daily
period of illumination at certain times of the year than nature provides.
Research has shown that egg production is enhanced during the spring and
it is on this basis that many producers subject the birds, upon coming into
lay, to a simulated spring in which the day-length is gradually increased from
about 12 to a maximum of about 17 hours. We see no reason why this
artificial spring should affect the welfare of the animals any more than a
natural spring.

BROILERS

86. The broiler industry is the most highly integrated of all the systems
we have considered and, largely because the industry is dominated by
contracts which specify standards for housing, feeding and management,
there is very little variation in techniques between one producer and
another.

87. The industry began in the U.K. in the early 1950s and expanded
rapidly after the abolition of rationing of animal feeds in 1953. In the
early stages of this expansion there were large numbers of small units
and management standards were highly variable and often poor. Now it
is a most competitive business and in recent years this competition has
been the cause of rapid integration. The number of units has been reduced
to about 2,000 in all and there are very few with a capacity of less than
5,000 birds. Though a general improvement in the standard of management
has occurred during this period, with recognition of certain basic minimum
requirements for the system to be successful and with the disappearance of
many less skilled producers, it has been accompanied by some reduction
in the floor space per bird.

88. The industry is based on high energy diets and the very favourable
food conversion rates over the first three months. The preferred type of
housing is similar to that commonly used for loose-housed deep litter laying
poultry. The litter need not be so deep as with laying birds in view of the
shorter time period involved. Complete and close control of light, tempera-
ture and humidity is normal. The average life of a broiler is 60 days
to slaughter, at which stage the liveweight is about 3-3 lb. for females and
4-3 lb. for males. The normal floor space allocation is about 0-7 square
feet per bird but variations either way are found and lesser amounts can
be commercially successful. Some producers in particular circumstances find
it preferable to allow a greater area per bird, perhaps one square foot, which
results in improved growth and a better finished bird commanding a higher
price. The birds normally spend the whole of their life-span after the age
of a few days in the same quarters. They are retained under brooders for
the first few days but they soon range throughout the house. They are
normally given ample facilities for food and water. Bright lighting is pro-
vided continuously at first but this is gradually reduced in intensity and a
diurnal pattern introduced. Despite elaborate precautions, these highly inten-
sive housing conditions carry inherent disease risks and the feeding of anti-
biotics and coccidiostats is routine practice.

24

89. The whole system is very far removed from the natural but we do
not find it as objectionable as some other forms of intensive husbandry.
We should point out, in particular, that the mortality rate is very low indeed
and that in many ways these birds are better looked after than other forms
of livestock. Indeed, the first few weeks of their lives are spent under rela-
tively good conditions but by the time the birds are approaching slaughter
size they have little room and conditions may have deteriorated.

90. We consider space per bird to be the most important factor in their
welfare. This has been steadily reduced since the industry began. We
recommend that a minimum standard should be laid down and that for
each bird above the age of six weeks there should be at least 1 square
foot of floor space.

91. Suffering can also occur as a result of inadequate management, by
a breakdown in services or by a panic or stampede resulting in the suffoca-
tion of some birds. We do not believe such accidents are common but the
recommendations in paragraph 84 apply equally here.

92. We also consider that cruelty arises amongst broilers in certain
fields outside our terms of reference. The first occurs in the collection,
packing and transport of the birds to the slaughterhouse. This is a matter
Which should be dealt with effectively under the existing legislation but
the evidence available to us suggests that it is not. The second is in the
slaughterhouse and we believe that legislation to compel efficient stunning
would remove our anxieties on this score. We hope our views will be
noted in the proper quarter and that action will be taken.

DE-BEAKING

93. We have paid a great deal of attention to the subject of de-beaking.
Many witnesses have commented upon this practice but we have been
surprised at the inadequacy of physiological knowledge on which many
of the comments have been based.

94. De-beaking is a mutilation which has been resorted to for the
purpose of preventing feather-picking and cannibalism to which fowl, and
particularly those of certain strains, are prone. This vice may occur under
any system, but is seldom a serious problem when the victims can take
appropriate avoiding action and have room to get away from the bullies,
as they have on free range. It is in intensive systems that it is liable to
assume serious proportions, and may cause the victims intense suffering,
as well as resulting in serious losses to the farmer. It is often particularly
serious in some loose housed flocks of laying birds and in multi-bird
batteries. It is much less common with very young birds, so is much
less of a problem with broilers than with layers or breeding birds. It can
be rare with some strains and under some managements and common in
Other cases. It does not appear to occur when not more than two or three
birds are caged together and it can sometimes be controlled by different
management. De-beaking is a preventative measure that has come into
common use with the development of intensive systems.

95. The normal practice is to cut through the upper mandible of the
bird one third of its length back from the tip to the feather line, using
an electrically-heated cauterising knife in order to prevent bleeding. The

25
30234 A9

operation is completed by touching the tip of the lower mandible with the ~
flat of the hot knife blade. It has been represented to us that when
correctly performed this operation does not cause the bird any pain.

96. To deal first with the question of correct performance of the
operation, this in itself seems highly difficult to guarantee. As a routine
part of poultry management it is not a task normally undertaken by skilled
operatives ; often, after a brief demonstration, a farm hand is given the
instrument and left to learn by trial and error how best to perform the
operation. A single worker may de-beak 1,000 or more birds in a day
and we are in no doubt that in a significant proportion of cases the operation
is not correctly performed and, either the cut is made at the wrong point
(occasionally the beak is cut back nearly as far as the nostrils) or in the
process the bird is mishandled and so frightened as to be subjected to
considerable stress.

97. Irrespective of whether the operation is performed competently, and
in the way that meets with the general approval of the poultry imdustry,
we are convinced that it causes considerable pain lasting for much longer
than the second or so that the operation takes to perform. It has been
frequently represented to us, and is frequently voiced in public, that the
operation is similar to the clipping of the finger-nails or toe-nails of humans.
There is no physiological basis for this assertion. The upper mandible of
the bird consists of a thin layer of horn covering a bony structure of the
same profile which extends to within a millimeter or so of the tip of the
beak. Between the horn and the bone is a thin layer of highly sensitive
soft tissue, resembling the quick of the human nail. The hot knife blade
used in de-beaking cuts through this complex of horn, bone and sensitive
tissue Causing severe pain.

98. We have, in any case, the further objection that de-beaking deprives
the bird of what is in effect its most versatile member. We recommend
that de-beaking should be prohibited as soon as possible for all birds
which are to be kept in battery cages and we are satisfied that the standards
which we advocate will obviate the need for this mutilation by removing
the danger of cannibalism under this system of husbandry.

99. In order to control outbreaks of vice, we conclude with reluctance
that de-beaking of birds kept under deep litter systems should be permitted
for a limited period. We consider that this period should be as short
as possible and we hope that two years from the publication of our report
will be sufficient time to allow for suitable strains to be in adequate supply
and for poultry keepers to adjust their housing and management techniques
so that de-beaking becomes unnecessary ; and we so recommend.

100. Cannibalism is not a serious problem with young birds and we
are confident that de-beaking is unnecessary for broilers. We recommend
that de-beaking of all poultry to be kept as broilers be prohibited forthwith.

101. Another method of preventing pecking is to attach spectacles or
blinkers to the heads of the birds. Although its use in this country at
present is On an insignificant scale it might be extended when de-beaking
is stopped. We recommend that all such attachments to the heads of
the birds obscuring the vision be prohibited.

26

102. Breeds with large crest combs are sometimes liable to suffer damage
to these, either by being pecked or through rubbing on the cage. Accord-
ingly dubbing, or the removal of the comb, is practised occasionally. We
have witnessed this operation on day-old chicks and are satisfied that at
that age it is of a trivial nature and appears to cause little or no suffering,
as the comb consists of only a minute ridge of anaemic skin which is
removed with a scissors without bleeding. We do not object to the procedure
at the day-old stage but we recommend that dubbing be not permitted
in birds of more than five days of age.

a
30234 A 10

CHAPTER 6

PIGS

103. Pigs have been domesticated for a considerable time, certainly since
the Late Stone Age. The domestic pig has originated in all probability from
the European wild pig. Turned loose in a suitable environment it will
readily revert to the wild state and the habits of such feral pigs have been
extensively studied and provide a reliable guide to the basic behaviour
pattern of the animal. They live in family parties or small herds, preferring
scrubland and light forest to open land. By contrast with herbivores such
as cattle and horses, they can digest a wide range of animal and vegetable
materials and will eat roots, herbage, fruit, fungi, eggs, small animals and
even rabbits and lambs as opportunity offers. They are foraging animals
which hunt for food and show marked curiosity in the investigation of
possible sources. Much of their food is obtained by rooting in the ground
for tubers, worms, insects, etc. and they are highly selective in the food they
choose. Although mainly diurnal in their habits in temperate climates, pigs
tend to become nocturnal during very hot weather, as they do under tropical
or sub-tropical conditions. They are sensitive to temperature, disliking
extremes, and adjust their behaviour to a wide range of temperatures.
Although the hair is sparse the body appears to be well insulated by a thick
layer of subdermal fat. They like a fairly warm environment, the baby pigs
being very sensitive to cold; they are deficient in sweat-glands in the skin
on which many other animals largely depend for temperature regulation.
Pigs, in consequence, have the habit of wallowing in water when they get hot
to provide the moisture necessary to cool the body surface. The effectiveness
for cooling of the evaporation of water from the body surface, whether
derived from sweat or wallowing, depends on the rate of evaporation. It is
maximal in a dry atmosphere and minimal at high humidities when the rate
of evaporation falls to near zero, under which conditions the pig can get
less benefit from wallowing.

104. Traditionally, because of its physical characteristics, in particular
its adaptability to varying circumstances and diets, the pig has been kept
under a wider variety of conditions and systems of management than is
possible, for instance, with sheep or cattle. It has a long tradition as a
backyard animal, often kept in small, cold and some times undrained styes
and fed on waste food and scraps. It is still often kept in relatively small
numbers on unspecialised holdings as a useful converter of waste food.
Traditionally, pigs are kept also on free range. Between these methods and
the most intensive modern ones every gradation can be found.

105. According to the June 1965, Agricultural Census there are about 62
million pigs in Great Britain. In 1964—65 the value of pigmeat produced was
about £170 millions. Pig production is second only to poultry in the degree
to which it can be described as intensive but, unlike poultry, the movement
towards intensification is not a recent or particularly rapid one. Specialised

28

pig production in this country followed developments elsewhere, notably in
Denmark and the United States of America. Confinement of porkers and
baconers entirely within doors became a common practice, both in houses
adapted for the purpose and in specially built ones. The use of high energy
compound feedingstuffs, based on grain, contributed to the development of
production on a large scale. Though compound feedingstuffs are now very
commonly used, there are still many pig producers who find it more profit-
able to employ other forms of food, such as waste from catering establish-
ments, whey from creameries and second-grade potatoes. This type of feeding
is sometimes practised on a very large scale in places where sufficient
quantities of food are available locally.

106. Pigs for bacon or pork have been kept more or less permanently
indoors from weaning to slaughter for many years. Most houses are divided
into pens holding convenient-sized batches of pigs, the pen itself having
sufficient floor area for all the pigs to lie down without lying on top of each
other but without much waste space. Sometimes the pens have movable
fronts which enable the area to be enlarged as the pigs grow. Such pens
normally have a separate dunging area, often in the form of a narrow corridor
or passage at the back or side of the pen opening into it. Sometimes this
dunging passage is outside the roofed part of the building, sometimes within
it. Provided the pigs use this area, it keeps the sleeping and feeding area
clean and facilitates dung disposal. Often the dunging passage has a slatted
floor above a collecting channel, which reduces the labour of cleaning stili
further. Pigs, unlike all other farm animals, can be readily induced to use this
area. A high stocking density within the pen is an important factor in
encouraging the use of the dunging area. This is encouraged also by the
dunging passage being lighted, either artificially or through being unroofed,
while the sleeping area is darkened except at feeding time. Further, the
location of the piped drinking points on the walls of the dunging passage
also encourages its use.

107. There is a tendency to replace the separate dunging passage by a
slatted area at the back of the pen, the remainder of the floor having a slight
fall to it. Totally slatted floors, though not common, are a feature of the
design of some intensive pig houses. They could become more popular in the
future with increased use of mechanical liquid feeding and mechanised dung
disposal.

108. Reduced lighting is common, though not universal, in such houses.
Sometimes the pens may be unlighted except at feeding time, or only sub-
dued lighting provided. Frequently the dunging passage is lighted either
artificially or by natural lighting.

109. Pigs in pens may be fed either from a trough, usually along the
front of the pen, or from the floor. It is important with trough feeding
that the length of trough, usually recommended at about one foot per pig,
should be sufficient for all the pigs to be able to feed simultaneously, other-
wise bullying and fighting will occur. The troughs may be filled at feeding
time either by hand with liquid or solid food or, if liquid, mechanically.
Floor feeding and self-feeding is often employed with dry food. It has the
advantages of allowing the animals easy access to the food without the
jostling and fighting that an inadequate length of trough encourages. It

29
30234 A il

also avoids the limitations on the dimensions of the pen imposed by the
need to provide a trough of sufficient length for all the pigs in it. Feeding
from the floor tends to occupy the animals far longer and may be more
satisfactory on that account. However, the food must be spread by hand
and hence it is not as economical of labour as mechanical trough feeding.

110. Pigs like warmth, and since in a warm environment less energy
need be expended in maintaining their body temperature, their conversion
rate is better than in the cold. The high cost of installing and maintaining
artificial heating can be avoided by using the heat given off by the bodies
of the pigs to maintain the temperature of the house. This method requires
a building with maximum heat conservation, secured by insulation of the
roof, walls and floor, reduction or elimination of windows and a fairly
high stocking density. The high density involves adequate ventilation and
forced ventilation is often necessary.

111. Another, and more recent, type of house for pigs is the so-called
‘“‘sweat-house””. It originated in Northern Ireland about ten years ago
and has spread to this country. Although it is not used extensively in
Great Britain there are probably about 25 to 30 true sweat-houses in
operation. These houses are characterised by combining a high temperature
with a high relative humidity. The system is operated over a range of
temperatures but as a rule the temperature fluctuates between 75°F. and
85°F. The buildings are unheated and the temperature is maintained by
the heat given off by the bodies of the animals. The high relative humidity,
often exceeding 90 per cent., is attained by moisture in the breath, and
evaporation of the urine. To maintain the temperature and humidity, a
high stocking density is necessary, usually allowing about 5 square feet
per pig to heavy hog weights, and a high level of liquid intake by the pigs.
Skim milk or whey is often the basis of the ration which is commonly
fortified by meal or food waste. The liquid food is fed mechanically in
the larger units and the solids floor-fed. Ventilation must be carefully
controlled to maintain the temperature and humidity within the narrow limits
required ; this is often achieved by adjusting the amount the half-door
is left open according to the weather.

112. The sweat-house appears to be a relatively cheap form of con-
struction. Its chief attraction, however, is that it is claimed to minimise
the effects of respiratory diseases to which pigs are prone. ‘These diseases
become of maximum importance when large numbers of pigs that have been
derived from a variety of sources, and which may carry infections, are
fattened. Sweat-houses are economical of labour in that feeding and
ventilation can be largely automatic and cleaning out is reduced to a
minimum. ‘Thus both capital and recurrent costs are low and it is claimed
that the effects of respiratory diseases are mitigated.

113. The sweat-house system in its typical form is the most intensive
method of fattening pigs in operation today. It is a method that has
evoked a great deal of public comment and it has been given prominence
repeatedly in the evidence which has been submitted to us. Much of this
evidence has been condemnatory and the method has been criticised, not
only by witnesses whose primary interest was animal welfare, but also by

30

several representatives of the pig industry. Accordingly we have felt bound
to enquire thoroughly into the method and to examine carefully the advan-
tages and disadvantages claimed for it. We have thought it necessary for
this purpose to visit sweat-houses in Northern Ireland, where the method
originated and where it is claimed to be notably successful, as well as in
this country. We are grateful to the Government of Northern Ireland and
to the producers we visited for enabling us to do so and for the facilities
which were placed at our disposal.

114. There can be no doubt that sweat-houses are aesthetically repug-
nant to many people. The conditions often appear to be unpleasantly
dirty ; there is a strong smell and the high temperature and humidity within
the buildings are obnoxious to man. ‘This repugnance is not confined to
people who take no part in pig production but is shared by many pig-
farmers and others connected with the pig industry. Moreover several pig
producers to whom we have talked said that, even if they wished to adopt
the sweat-house system, they would be unable to do so because of the
difficulty of finding men willing to work in the obnoxious conditions pre-
vailing within the houses. Our difficulty has been to determine how far
these conditions, so objectionable to man, are uncomfortable for the pig.

115. The pig has little provision for sweating and at high temperatures
depends on wallowing and evaporation from the wetted body surface for
keeping itself cool. In a sweat-house, because of the high relative humidity,
this can provide little relief. But the pig can lose a significant amount of
heat through the floor. Consequently the pigs must remain inactive if they
are not to become overheated. The stocking rate is such that the whole
floor is covered with pigs when they are all lying down, and they have only
just enough room to do so. The floor tends to be covered with excreta,
in which they must lie, and consequently their bodies are covered with dirt.
There is no possibility of their keeping themselves clean, though this may
not affect their welfare. When floor feeding is practised, they must find their
food amongst the dirt on the floor. The respiratory rate of pigs under
the hot and humid conditions of the sweat-house may rise to a high level
but we have no evidence that this can be regarded as abnormal or that
of itself it produces, or results from, a state of stress. The temperatures
sometimes prevailing in sweat-houses are not much below those that may
be lethal to the pig at high humidities, so that a small rise may result in
death from heatstroke. The sweat-house requires very skilful and careful
management of the temperature and humidity by adjustment of the ventilation
if this danger is to be avoided.

116. Sweat-house conditions do not favour effective inspection of all the
stock. The feeding may be entirely mechanical so that the house is not ©
necessarily entered twice a day even for this purpose. The pigs are often
so tightly packed that it is difficult to see the individual animal, even when
they are moving about. Unless they are inspected at feeding time or when
they have been roused for the purpose, ailing animals may be overlooked.
We regard this as one of the more serious defects of the system.

117. We have described above the conditions of management prevailing
when pigs are fattened intensively in conventional houses and in “ typical”
sweat-houses. We have set out as fairly as we can the advantages and

Bi
30234 A 12

disadvantages that have come to our notice of both these types of manage-
ment. There are, however, many variants of both types and a range of
intermediates between them, mainly in adapted houses, that renders clear
definition impossible. There is no clear distinction by which the one system
can be distinguished from the other in all cases, though typical examples
of either are distinctive. We are unable therefore to suggest standards
which should apply specifically to each system and our recommendations
will apply to all forms of intensive management of pigs intended for slaughter.
We are satisfied that the conventional system can, where necessary, be
readily adapted to these requirements but we are uncertain whether the
sweat-house system can be so adapted. We believe that if it can, then
its more objectionable features will have been abolished and we would not
wish to inhibit the evolution of a system on these lines that has at least
some advantages but we do not consider that the sweat-house system in its
extreme form, as practised at present, is satisfactory.

118. A primary concern is the amount of living space available to the
animal. This has tended to decline to a level at or near that at which the
saving in capital costs of the buildings becomes offset by loss in production
and is clearly well below that which is acceptable. We are of opinion that
basic mandatory standards should be set in the general interest of the
welfare of pigs and we recommend accordingly that the minimum floor space
allowed per pig, between 150-210 lb. liveweight, should be 8 square feet
clear including the dunging area, and above 210 lb. liveweight it should
be 10 square feet clear including the dunging area.

119. We have considered the question of houses not having a separate
dunging area, walled-off from the sleeping and feeding area. This arrange-
ment is not necessarily confined to highly intensive houses but it is certainly
more common with them. In general a slatted area is provided in such
pens, although it is not partitioned off. Some producers claim that they are
able to ensure that the pigs use this area but our experience does not sustain
this claim. Our observations lead us to believe that where the dunging area
is not walled-off the sleeping and floor feeding area becomes soiled. This
is undesirable in our view both for reasons of hygiene and for the comfort
of the pigs, especially when the temperature of the house is low. We consider
that in fattening houses where litter is not used a separate dunging area
of not less than 14 square feet per pig should be freely available to every
animal. It is desirable that the dunging area should be separated from the
feeding and sleeping area by a partition not less than 2 feet 6 inches high.
We recognise that this cannot be made mandatory since to do so might well be
contrary to the welfare of pigs kept under certain systems, e.g. skim milk fed.

120. Totally slatted floors are uncommon in pig houses but might, as
we have stated in paragraph 107, become more popular. We are not
attracted by the possibility of this development but the information available
to us at present is insufficient to justify recommending their prohibition.
More information is required on their effects on the comfort of the animals
when sleeping ; on the confidence with which animals walk, and the ease with
which they can lie down and get up; and on whether leg and foot ailments
are more common than on solid floors. Totally slatted floors should be
prohibited if they prove to be unsatisfactory in these respects even if they

32

result in economy of labour. This is a matter which should be referred to
the Farm Animal Welfare Standing Advisory Committee (Chapter 11).

121. The atmospheric environment is particularly important for the com-
fort of pigs, as we have said, and they should be free from draughts. The
levels of temperature, relative humidity and ventilation that are suitable
are fairly weil established and are recognised by many enlightened pro-
ducers and by the advisory services; but they vary with the age of the
animal. We are unable to recommend that they be made mandatory
because of the difficulty or impossibility of enforcing such requirements.
We believe it to be worthwhile, nevertheless, to suggest certain standards
which should be recognised as basic to good husbandry and which we hope
would be generally adopted. The temperature for fattening pigs up to 120 |b.
liveweight should be in the range 65°F. to 75°F., for bacon weight (190
Ib. liveweight) it should be 60°F. to 70°F. and up to heavy hog weight
(250 lb. liveweight) 55°F. to 65°F. The relative humidity should be in
general below 80 per cent. The ventilation should be designed to secure the
conditions stated above.

122. The use of severely restricted lighting is becoming increasingly
common with intensive pig husbandry and it is especially associated with
the use of purpose-built windowless houses. It has relevance to welfare
in two ways. First, its use with pigs causes us less anxiety than with some
Other creatures so far as its direct effect on their comfort is concerned.
The pig in the wild state is a partially nocturnal creature; near darkness
does not diminish its activities and it will sleep in the day-time, preferring
a shady or dimly lighted spot to do so. We do not believe, therefore, that
there is a need to specify the intensity or duration of illumination but we
consider that the pigs should have access to light, which need not be daylight,
for several hours per day. Secondly, the provision of adequate lighting for
inspection of the pigs by the stockman is highly important. Efficient routine
inspection of every individual animal at least once per day, and preferably
twice, we consider essential. We recommend accordingly that the provision
of lighting in the building bright enough to enable all the animals to be seen
clearly should be mandatory.

123. The use of fioor feeding, as against trough feeding, is a feature of
intensive methods of pig husbandry to which we have referred in paragraph
109. It appears to us to have some advantages over trough feeding so far
as the welfare of the pigs is concerned provided the floor is kept clean. This
should not present difficulty when the housing includes proper dunging
facilities as specified in paragraph 119, and it is in the interests of the pro-
ducer to ensure good hygiene in this respect.

124. The incidence of tail biting appears to be more frequent amongst
pigs that are kept intensively, although it is not confined to them. It can
be prevented by docking the tail, but this may merely divert the attack to
the ears or snout. Docking is becoming increasingly common with the
spread of intensive methods. It is practised as a matter of routine on all
pigs intended for fattening in some premises, but in others it is resorted
to only when vice occurs in a particular batch. We believe that the vice
of tail biting is rare under good management in suitable houses that are

30

not over-stocked, and that in consequence docking will be generally unneces-
sary under the conditions we have specified. We disapprove of this mutila-
tion in principle; it involves the destruction of sensitive tissue and bone,
thus causing severe pain and we recommend that the docking of pigs should
be prohibited, save when necessary as a remedial treatment by a veterinary
surgeon.

125. Intensive methods are coming into use for keeping breeding sows
as well as for fattening pigs. A recently introduced practice is the keep-
ing of pregnant sows in cubicles in which they cannot turn round, the
cubicle being either open at the rear end and the sow tethered, or closed
with the sow’s head free. ‘This practice prevents bullying, as adult sows
are more vicious in establishing a social order than are young fattening
animals. It also simplifies management and allows control of the individual
food intake. Despite those advantages we are unable to approve such close
confinement continuously throughout pregnancy. The farrowing sow is often
still more closely confined in the interests of the piglets but to this we
do not object as it is only during the period of parturition and the succeed-
ing few days. After weaning the breeding sow has at best only a few days
of comparative freedom before the next service and repetition of the regime.
She may spend, therefore, the greater part of her breeding life in very
close confinement. We recommend that pregnant sows should not be
kept without daily exercise in quarters which do not permit them to turn
round freely and in any event they should not be tethered indoors.

126. For the pig, as for other domestic animals, we regard the reduction
of disease as a very important, perhaps the most important factor in
promoting their welfare. Lameness in fattening pigs is a common ailment
at the present time, but we have been unable to discover that it is associated
with any particular form of management. With research into its causes
being much intensified latterly, it is hoped that its causation will soon be
clarified. Our attention has also been drawn to the recent development
of the production of minimal disease pigs. Reports suggest that the
health and performance of herds founded on such stock is superior, provided
that very high standards of husbandry are maintained and the herd is
isolated from infection by other pigs. It would be premature to judge
how widely such methods can be applied with success on a large-scale to
commercial pig production but in so far as they may contribute to the
reduction of disease, particularly enzootic pneumonia, we would welcome
them.

34

CHAPTER 7

CATTLE

127. Cattle have been domesticated for over 6,000 years. The European
breeds are thought to have been derived from the wild aurochs. Whatever
their precise origin, modern cattle come from ancestors that were essen-
tially herd living and grazing animals, that spent most of their time grazing
or chewing-the-cud while standing, or lying down with their legs doubled
under them. The calves ran almost from birth by the mother’s side,
maternal care for the young being pronounced. Herd behaviour was highly
developed, the bull being polygamous. Threatened with danger, the animals
tended to congregate in a close group, with the calves in the centre and
the adults facing out for defence. Cattle were accustomed to roaming
over wide stretches of country in search of grazing or water and had no
fixed territory. They displayed marked curiosity when their attention was
attracted to anything strange in their environment. Domestic cattle have
retained all this basic behaviour to a marked degree and are intelligent
animals.

128. Domestic cattle will breed at all times of the year. The non-
pregnant cow will mate at intervals of three weeks. Pregnancy lasts about
280 days. Single births are the rule, but twins occur. Artificial insemina-
tion is widely practised in this country, particularly among the dairy herd,
where it now accounts for 70 per cent. of all births.

129. There are nearly 11 million cattle on farms in Great Britain. The
total annual output of the. dairy industry in Great Britain is valued at
approximately £380 millions and the value of meat produced from cattle,
including beef and veal, is about £250 millions. Thus, in terms of value of
product, cattle are much the largest item in the livestock industry of this
country.

130. The management of cattle can be considered under four headings:
bulls for breeding ; dairying; calf rearing; and stock-raising for beef. Of
these, the first is not intensive within our definition and we have not con-
sidered it. After careful thought, we have decided not to include the
keeping of dairy cattle in our enquiry for several reasons. The husbandry
of dairy cows does not seem to have evoked any considerable public anxiety
and has received very little mention in the evidence presented to us. Dairy
cattle are subject to inspection and a variety of regulations in relation to
health precautions. Although they are frequently kept entirely within doors
at fairly high stocking densities, and their management is often highly
mechanised, the development of these methods has been gradual. Our
impression is that no other kind of farm livestock is so well cared for.
Moreover, a thorough inquiry into the methods of dairy husbandry in use
throughout the United Kingdom would have greatly lengthened our delibera-
tions. In our opinion the results would not have justified the delay in
completing the other, and more important, part of our work. Nevertheless,

35

we anticipate that the general principles governing animal welfare which
we are enunciating and some of our more specific recommendations relating
to housing and flooring for beef animals will be applicable to dairy cows.

131. One matter that affects both dairying and calf-rearing we must
mention. Separating the calf from its mother shortly after birth undoubtedly
inflicts anguish on both. Maternal care for the young is highly developed
in cattle, and it is only necessary to observe the behaviour of the cow and
of the calf when they are separated to appreciate this. It is a consequence
of keeping cows to produce milk for human consumption and we regret
that we know of no way by which it can be avoided.

132. Nearly all calf-rearing is intensive in a sense, irrespective of the
use to which the calves are finally put, since most of them are taken from
their dams at an early age and reared independently. Hence they require
a great deal of attention, particularly as regards housing, environment and
diet. Calves, in common with the young of other species, are highly
susceptible to disease, a susceptibility greatly aggravated by two circum-
stances. Calves born to dairy cows are taken from their dams at a very
early age, sometimes without having received the first milk or colostrum
on which their powers of resistance to infection mainly depend. Maternal
immunity is normally transmitted to the calf by this means during the first
day or two of independent life. Such calves are, therefore, particularly liable
to infection. Secondly, unless the calves are required for replacement on
the farm, they are likely to be exposed to the hazards and hardships of
transport and marketing and the greatly increased risk of infection thereby
involved. Isolation in separate pens is almost essential at first to avoid
the spread of infection and to facilitate treatment of those already infected.
Initial feeds of glucose and water and large doses of vitamins and anti-
biotics are given to compensate for deficiencies in colostrum and to tide
them over this difficult period. Consequently, calves are normally kept
indoors ; their food has to be brought to them and they are confined, often
in individual pens.

133. The necessity for confinement may apply irrespective of whether
they are intended for veal, for beef or for dairy replacements, but the type
of housing and form and degree of restraint varies greatly. Calves fed on
whole milk, particularly those that suckle their dam and which have access
to fodder, need less cosseting than others and can be reared successfully and
without suffering, under fairly rudimentary conditions. Pail-fed calves on
the other hand, and particularly those fed on milk substitute diets, require
a much better environment and housing. Calves separated from their dams
lick and suck each other. This undesirable habit and the liability to spread
infection are the reasons for restraint. For their first few weeks the use
of small pens or crates, holding one or more calves, is usual in all types of
calf rearing.

134. Calves of some dairy breeds are seldom used for fattening and,
if not required for dairy replacements, are killed during the first few days,
the “bobby” veal produced being used mainly for manufacturing. In
practice it is often difficult to distinguish between calves that are reared
for slaughter as ordinary veal, those that are kept for beef and those that
are for dairy replacements ; on many farms they may share the same quarters

36

and a decision as to their ultimate use may not be taken until they are some
weeks old. There is, however, no difficulty in identifying those intended for
the “white” veal industry, since the method of management for this is
highly specialised and characteristic. It involves the most intensive methods
of calf rearing and it is that to which most attention has been paid in the
evidence we have received. It is clearly the most important type of calf
rearing in so far as our terms of reference are concerned and to which
we have devoted most of our attention. It is this type which we will
consider in the succeeding sections but the recommendations we shall make,
with the “white” veal industry primarily in mind, will be applicable to all
forms of calf rearing in so far as they are intensive.

VEAL CALVES

135. Calf rearing for the quality “ white” veal production is possibly the
most specialised and uniform of all forms of intensive animal husbandry.
There is remarkably little variation in the methods followed and in the
conditions of housing from one unit to another. This presumably is because
producers, with the encouragement of those feedingstuffs manufacturers
who produce the specialised milk substitute foods used, have copied closely
the methods used in Holland, where the method originated. Like other forms
of intensive husbandry, it can be completely independent of the other opera-
tions of a farm, and need not be associated with one. The prerequisites of
“white” veal production are buildings and a supply of suitable calves
at economic prices.

136. The total annual production of veal of ail kinds in Great Britain is
relatively small. In 1964-65 it amounted to about 11,000 tons (compared
with 824,000 tons of beef, 719,000 tons of pigmeat and 247,000 tons of
mutton and lamb) and much of it is bought by catering establishments.
It is difficult to foresee with any certainty the future scale of “white ” veal
production but many people believe that this type of meat is likely to become
increasingly acceptable to the public and that, as this occurs, there could
be a rapid increase of production. In this context it is important to bear
in mind the ease with which producers can go into production. The chief
limiting factor to the size of the industry appears to be the supply of calves.
Under present economic circumstances, producers who intend rearing calves
for beef can afford to pay higher prices for them than veal producers, and
it seems likely that the price of beef will continue to limit the availability
of calves for veal.

137. The most distinctive and important feature of “white” veal is, of
course, the colour and texture of the flesh. It is this that gives it its appeal
and price premium ; consequently the producer aims at as white a flesh as
possible. Traditionally, veal calves were kept on whole cow’s milk and
received similar treatment to dairy replacements. ‘They were not given
roughage, however, and were sometimes kept in darkness with periodic
bleeding in the belief that this contributed to a whiter flesh. The feeding
of whole milk is no longer profitable. The present-day “white” veal
industry is based on the use of proprietary milk substitute diets of a type
developed in Holland several years ago. These feedingstufis consist mainly
of skim-milk solids with the addition of vegetable fats. The fat content

37

is high—usually above 18 per cent. nowadays, several times that of cow’s
milk of which the national average butterfat content is around 3-7 per cent.
With the use of these high energy feeds the producer is able to take
advantage of the rapid weight gain and good conversion which can be
obtained over the first few weeks of the calf’s life. ‘“‘ White” veal calves
often gain up to 24 lb. per day. The calves are kept normally for about
12 weeks, during which time they grow from a weight of about 90 lb. to
around 250-300 lb.

138. The degree of restaint imposed on calves for “ white” veal pro-
duction tends to be closer than for other forms of calf rearing. The calves
are kept under the same conditions for the whole of their 12 weeks of life.
The most common form of housing consists of wooden crates measuring
5 feet by 2 feet with slatted floors raised 9 inches or so above the ground,
through which the dung can fall to the floor. After a period of about
three weeks, depending on the breed of the calf, it is unable to turn round
in its crate. Sometimes the sides of the crates are solid so that the calf cannot
normally see or touch its fellows; the sides, as well as the front, may be
barred. Again, the pens may be open-ended and the calves tied by a short
tether. Occasionally calves are kept in multiple pens and are then tethered.
Most producers pay close attention to maintaining a comfortable minimum
atmospheric temperature, usually about 65°F. with a relative humidity of
above 70 per cent. During the day the lighting is usually subdued, but
calves are rarely, if ever, kept nowadays in total darkness as it is recognised
that light does not affect the colour of the flesh. Subdued lighting minimises
the fly nuisance.

139. The aspects of white veal production which mostly concern us,
and which were given most emphasis in the evidence we received, relate
to the diet and to the severe restriction of movement imposed on the
animals ; but there are other matters which call for comment.

140. The diet of the “white” veal calf raises greater problems than
those concerning any other animal. This is because the diet is regulated
with the intention of preventing the flesh of the calf developing the normal
red colour of lean meat. The intake of iron is kept to the minimum
necessary for survival in the comparatively inactive state in which the
calf is maintained. The food intake is confined to a liquid diet having a
predetermined and accurately known iron content. The calf is not allowed
access to fodder, from which much of the normal intake of iron is derived.
Precautions are usually taken to prevent the animal assimilating iron in
Other ways, for instance through licking iron fittings in its pen, even though
it is doubtful if it could absorb iron in this way. The problem which
we face is whether the physiological state of the calf resulting from this
controlled diet is likely to cause suffering.

141. The red colour of lean meat is due to the presence in the muscle
of the red pigment myoglobin, a substance closely allied to the haemoglobin
of the blood and, like it, containing iron as an essential component. If the
lean meat of an animal is abnormally white it is because its content of
myoglobin is abnormally low. Axiomatically, “ white” veal is deficient in
myoglobin, and this cannot be gainsaid. It is, however, possible to argue
that the deficiency is not such as to cause suffering.

38

142. No animal totally deficient in iron could survive, for the haemoglobin
of the blood and certain colourless enzymes containing iron in the cells
are essential for life. The normal and most convenient way of measuring
iron deficiency in an animal is to determine the haemoglobin level of the
blood. If it is abnormally low the animal is said to be anaemic. Some
limited information is available on blood haemoglobin levels in calves.
The most striking feature of these is the wide natural variation in the
haemoglobin level at birth which may persist for the first three months.
In this connection we should refer to the troubles which have sometimes
been caused by the use in this country of a formula for the milk substitute
diet evolved for conditions in Holland where the iron content of the water
supply (with which the milk powder is mixed) is generally much higher
than in many parts of Great Britain. This difference has now been recognised
by the principal feed manufacturers and sufficient iron has been added
to the diets to compensate for the difference in the water. In this way
the early troubles with acute anaemia appear to have been eliminated.
It may be true that contemporary milk substitute diets contain more iron
than does whole milk but this fails to allow for the ability of the calf
suckling its dam to obtain iron from other sources.

143. It has been represented to us in evidence that because the haemo-
globin values of “white” veal calves fall within the limits of variation
of the levels in new born calves (though little above the lower limits) they
cannot be said to be anaemic. It is clear that calves commonly display
a decline in haemoglobin levels in the early part of their lives and that
those kept for “ white” veal at the time of slaughter generally have lower
haemoglobin levels than the normal for dairy calves. It is argued that this
fall is not objectionable because normal calves at this period of life take
up more iron than they require at the time in order to store it for a later
period and that the veal calf gets enough for its need up to the time of
slaughter. We have given these considerations in relation to anaemia at
some length because the subject has figured prominently in the evidence
we have received and in public discussion. They are of interest in relation
to the general physiological state of the iron deficient calf. They do not
affect our opinion that because quality veal is by definition abnormally
white it is, therefore, abnormally deficient in myoglobin and we consider
that this deficiency is due to regime, perhaps to the iron deficiency in the
diet, though the state of inactivity in which the animal is maintained is
more likely to contribute to the failure to produce a normal amount of
myoglobin.

144. The withholding of roughage from “white” veal calves, because
they might drink less milk substitute and because roughage might affect
the colour of the flesh has other consequences. A normal calf, raised
with its dam, begins to nibble grass or other roughage at an early age,
probably when it is not much more than a fortnight old. This roughage
in the alimentary track enables it to begin rumination long before it is
weaned and certainly much before it is twelve weeks of age. Early weaned
calves, offered concentrates and roughage from an early age, commonly
ruminate from three weeks onwards and rumination may start even earlier
in some cases. The veal calf, deprived of fodder and fed exclusively on
a liquid diet, cannot ruminate because it has no roughage. It is claimed

39

that it has no need to ruminate because the diet does not require it. Cattle
have highly specialised digestive systems, a characteristic function of which
is rumination. Grazing or the eating of some roughage is followed by a
period of rumination. We find it hard to believe that the urge to ruminate
is not part of the satisfaction of feeding. It is true that suckling seems to
suppress the urge to ruminate, but even the suckling calf will ruminate
when it has nibbled fodder, though it does not do so to the extent of a
calf removed from its mother and given solid food. The “ white ” veal calf
has not the satisfaction either of suckling or of rumination. Its habit of
nibbling the woodwork of its pen and anything else it can reach suggests
a desire for solid food. Moreover the absence of solid food in the digestive
tract commonly results in the hair derived from licking itself accumulating
as hairballs in the rumen which remain at slaughter.

145. We are convinced that the methods of rearing calves in the “ white ”
veal industry do not conform with the principles of welfare which we have set
out in Chapter 4, paragraph 39, in that they result in abnormally white
muscles and postpone the development of rumination. The diet should be
such as to ensure normal levels of haemoglobin and to permit of rumination.
We therefore recommend that milk substitute or other manufactured diets
should be so reinforced with iron in a suitable form as to ensure that on a
normal intake the animal is in no wise deficient in this element. We recom-
mend that all calves be provided with palatable roughage daily at all ages
from a week after birth. It need scarcely be added that the old practice, now
discarded, of periodically bleeding calves to produce an anaemia is un-
acceptable ; and to prevent its revival it should be made illegal.

146. Veal calves on a milk substitute diet are not normally given drink-
ing water; and this has been criticised as a privation. These animals
normally consume several gallons of water each day in the form of miik
substitute, so that their intake of water is more than ample for their needs
and there is no evidence to suggest that they are thirsty.

147. We now turn our attention to the amount of restraint which is
proper in our opinion. Calves taken from their dams at birth or soon after
clearly must be housed for their own good. Where these have been gathered
from a variety of sources, have been transported, often for long distances,
and may have been exposed at market, good hygiene demands that they
should be kept separately until it is believed that they are clear of infection.
Fairly close confinement during their first few weeks is called for in con-
sequence and is clearly to their advantage. There is reason to believe that
if the calf of any age cannot turn round, so that its feeding place does not
become soiled with droppings, and if it cannot lick its neighbours, the risk of
enteric infections is significantly reduced. Close restraint and separation
from its fellows also prevents navel-sucking and bullying. Another factor
to be taken into account is that cattle of all ages kept indoors become very
accustomed to their immediate environment and routine and that a change,
even to another house, unsettles them and tends to set up a temporary state
of stress which is reflected for a week or two by decreased growth rate.
Nevertheless calves at large are normally active, playful animals. They lick
and groom themselves, show curiosity about their environment and are

40

sociable. Under unrestrained circumstances they display few of the objection-
able habits associated with close confinement.

148. To determine the degree of confinement which we consider accept-
able for rearing calves we have attempted to apply the principles outlined
in paragraphs 36, 37 and 38 of Chapter 4 in the light of the special con-
siderations mentioned in the last paragraph. We have given this matter very
careful consideration and we recommend that the yoking or close tethering
of calves, except for short periods and for specific purposes (e.g. feeding or
veterinary treatment) should be prohibited.

149. Provided it is not too small, the individual pen or crate allows some
freedom of movement and is tolerable. Unless under specific veterinary
advice for individual sick animals, we consider that calves should have suffi-
cient room to be able at all ages to turn around, to groom themselves and to
move without discomfort. The size of pen in common use at present for
“white ” veal production is, we believe, too small to meet these requirements
adequately, especially as the calf approaches slaughter size.

150. We have considered carefully the representations that have been made
to us in favour of the small pen and we are unable to accept that those
advantages which cannot be secured in other ways are sufficient to justify
so close a measure of restraint. We recommend that individual pens for calves
should be of a sufficient size to allow the calf freedom of movement, including
ability to turn round and that those for calves of 200-300 Ib. liveweight
should measure at least 5 feet by 3 feet 6 inches. Pens for accommodating
more than one calf of this weight should allow not less than 12 square feet
per animal. We recommend that the sides should not be solid above 2 feet
from the floor, so that calves can see their neighbours when standing. Solid
sides below 2 feet from the floor may be an advantage to the calf as an
additional protection against draughts when lying.

151. Calves for “white” veal production are normally kept on slatted
floors without bedding. The slats most commonly used are wooden ones
14 inches wide with a 1 inch gap. We consider from what we have seen and
heard that the calf can stand and move with reasonable care and confidence
on these, provided they are not badly worn or slippery. It is most important
that slats should be well designed and constructed and that they should be
properly maintained. At present the evidence is insufficient to form a judge-
ment as to the welfare of calves on types of open-work floors other than
slats, e.g. metal mesh. Further attention should be given to these if they
come into more general use.

152. We do not, however, feel that calves should be kept permanently
without bedding, irrespective of the form of floor. All bedding is withheld
normally from calves for “ white” veal because they would obtain roughage
therefrom and because it is easier to keep the floor clean without. We have
recommended that all calves should be given roughage and when this is done
there will be no reason to withhold bedding because it would provide
roughage. We therefore recommend that calves should be provided with
sufficient clean straw or other bedding on which to lie down.

153. Atmospheric conditions are most important for calves. They require
plenty of fresh air but must not be exposed to draughts. Although calves

4]

do well at temperatures as low as 50°F. we consider that they are better at
temperatures of 55°F—60°F. and at relative humidities of not more than
75 per cent. We hope that these standards will be generally accepted and
acknowledged by the advisory bodies.

154. As stated earlier, calves are seldom now kept in darkness. Calves
can suffer from strong direct sunlight. There is no evidence that lack of
direct sunlight causes them any harm. Reduced lighting has the advantage
of discouraging flies, which can be an even more serious nuisance to an
animal in confinement than at large. We consider that the lighting during
the day should not be reduced below the level at which the calves can be
clearly seen and can, presumably, see each other.

155. We wish to stress the paramount importance of good stockmanship
in the rearing of calves, especially by intensive methods. Each calf should
be adequately inspected, at least at feeding time and the lighting should be
sufficient for this purpose. Finally we would express the hope that the
responsible bodies will continue to press for improvement in the conditions
of transport and marketing of calves.

INTENSIVE BEEF PRODUCTION

156. Barley beef, which is the most intensive form, had its origin, so far
as this country is concerned, in the work at the Rowett Research Institute
in the late 1950s and early 60s. ‘This showed that suitable calves fed on a diet
consisting of crushed whole barley fortified with protein, vitamins and minerals
with no additional fodder could be brought to slaughter weight at about 11
months of age instead of the usual minimum of 18 months required with
store animals fattened by conventional methods. The system depends on two
factors ; ample supplies of cheap barley and a supply of suitable, reasonably
priced calves.

157. Although intensive beef production involves the confinement of the
animals in covered yards or houses, a variety of forms of housing can be
used. Farmers in many cases find it cheaper and easier to adapt existing
buildings for the purpose. Many purpose-built installations are also in use;
their design varies widely with the materials most readily available and
the method of disposal of the manure. The capital cost of buildings therefore
varies greatly and the annual allowance for depreciation may range from
about £2 10s. to £6 per animal. The high-cost, purpose-built installation
usually has slatted floors so that the manure may be collected below and
pumped away in fluid form for disposal on the land. It is customary for
such buildings to be stocked at a fairly high density, so as to make the most
of the capital spent and to ensure that the traffic of animals is sufficient
to keep the floor clean by moving the dung through the slats. High density
stocking in an enclosed building frequently requires mechanical ventilation,
normally provided by fans in the roof ridges or gable ends driving out the
exhaust air and with louvred inlets or open windows for air entry in the
sides of the building. There are many variations on this basic pattern and
also on the way in which the enterprise is fitted into the husbandry programme
of the farm. The animals spend virtually the whole of their lives within the
building in what might be termed the truly intensive units; in others the
producer may combine the use of some pasture with indoor housing. The

42

animals are often kept on deep litter of straw within covered yards in the
less specialised and cheaper installations. These may be completely enclosed
or partially open to the weather ; either seems to be successful if other aspects
of management are satisfactory. There is no great measure of agreement
amongst producers as to the importance of the degree of protection from
the weather but it is widely acknowledged that adequate ventilation, either
forced or natural, is essential.

158. Intensive beef has several obvious attractions to British producers
and one or two drawbacks. First, it provides an outlet for the barley crop.
Secondly, compared with traditional methods, it offers a quicker return on
the capital tied up in the animals. Largely for these reasons intensive
beef production has increased rapidly in Great Britain over the last few
years. The Ministry of Agriculture recently instituted an inquiry in the
annual agricultural census concerning the intentions of beef producers, from
which it appears that about 15 per cent. of the animals being fattened for
beef at present are intended for early slaughter under an intensive form of
production. There is no accurate information as to the manner of housing
these animals but it is probable that the majority are kept loose-housed in
covered yards on straw bedding. It is probable that only a small proportion
are kept in purpose-built intensive houses. The size of the units varies
markedly. One which we visited held several thousand animals in groups
of 10 in yards on straw bedding, with protection from the weather provided
by partial walling and roofing. At the other end of the scale there are
many small units each with only a handful of animals. Probably most of
these are only semi-intensive in that they may depend to some degree on
the use of pasture.

159. The evidence we have heard concerning intensive beef systems has
centred on two aspects; the effects of the high energy diets and the forms
of housing employed. We shall consider these two aspects in that order.
We have already covered, earlier in this chapter, the minimum conditions
which we recommend should be observed in the early rearing of calves,
Whether for veal, beef or dairy replacement. Our comments and recom-
mendations in the succeeding paragraphs therefore relate to the stage after
calves intended for beef have been taken off a mainly milk or milk substitute
diet.

160. Some beef animals when slaughtered are found to have liver dis-
orders. Many witnesses have told us of the occurrence of these disorders
in intensively-kept, barley-fed animals. We have been unable to discover
any evidence to indicate a causal relationship and there are most certainly
other and complex factors involved. The incidence of liver troubles varies
greatly from one area to another, and in some appears to be as high
in grazing animals as it is in those fed on a barley diet. It is possible
that the addition of some roughage to the barley diet may tend to reduce
the incidence of liver complaints, but we have not been able to establish
that this is so. However, the provision of roughage in addition to the barley
diet is believed to reduce the incidence of bloat and other digestive dis-
orders that are responsible for many of the losses which occur amongst
barley-fed animals. Although a diet based on crushed or crimped whole
barley is said to contain sufficient roughage for the animals to ruminate,

43

the addition of hay or straw provides for the better performance of this
function. Although some producers can raise their beef successfully on the
barley diet without encountering digestive troubles, the majority do provide
some additional roughage. Very many producers bed the animals on straw
and some use straw bales as walls to the yards for protection against the
weather and, inevitably, the animals eat some of this straw. The provision
of roughage may diminish slightly the rate of liveweight gain but we do
not think that this effect is material when weighed against the advantages.
We advocate that, for barley-fed animals, roughage in some form should
be provided and that this should be stressed by the advisory services and
others who give guidance to producers.

161. We must pay attention to the form and degree of restraint which
may be used with beef animals. With the average type of beef housing
we do not consider that there is a problem so long as producers do not
attempt (and we do not believe the majority do) to exceed the commonly
accepted levels of stocking density. But there are certain instances where
very close and prolonged restraint is enforced. It is the practice under
some systems of husbandry to hold beef animals tethered or yoked in pens
or in courts. ‘This is rarely a feature of what are regarded as modern
intensive beef systems but it is, for instance, traditional in the North of
England and in Scotland, mainly, but not exclusively, for in-wintering.

162. We dislike all such forms of close restraint for several reasons.
In the first place they run counter to the animal’s recognised behavioural
pattern with its emphasis on social structure, movement and curiosity of the
animal about its surroundings. The animal is prevented from exercising
itself and in some cases is unable to groom itself adequately. The advantages
of prolonged tethering, both to the animal and to the producer, seem to us
small and we believe this practice could be superseded. We therefore
recommend that restraint by prolonged or permanent short tethering or
yoking of animals being fattened for beef production should be prohibited
forthwith. We also recommend that all forms of prolonged tethering should
be prohibited as soon as practicable. By “short” tethering we mean
tethering which prevents the animal from grooming itself properly. By the
use of the word “ prolonged” we mean to include any system of husbandry
that involves the animal spending most of its time during some months
of the year under this form of restraint. We accept that there are many
valid uses of brief tethering and occasions when it is unavoidable. Our
recommendation consequently excludes the use of tethering or yoking for
limited periods of feeding or as a means of isolating a sick animal for
veterinary treatment.

163. In addition to these forms of individual restraint we have considered
the significance of the limitations which confinement in pens or yards—
sometimes at high stocking densities—may have for the animal’s welfare.
Our opinion, based on the evidence before us and our own observations,
is that in the majority of forms under which intensive beef is produced,
conditions in this respect are already satisfactory. Problems are more
likely to arise where specialised accommodation is used and where the
economic pressure on the producer is to put as many animals as possible
into the house to reduce the capital charge per animal. The normal practice
is for them to be segregated in small groups of a few animals which often

44

remain together for the whole of their lives. Sometimes the groups may be
quite large, fifty or more animals in large yards, but this is not typical of the
highly intensive indoor system.

164. We consider space per animal to be most important to their
welfare but judgment is complicated by the variation in housing conditions.
It is difficult in practice to be certain whether crowded or uncomfortable
conditions are producing stress in cattle. But in view of what is known
of the animal’s normal pattern of behaviour, we believe it is right to assume
that overcrowding can lead to stress. The point at which such stress
is liable to occur is impossible to determine with any accuracy, especially
as Other features of housing, such as the surface on which the animal treads
and the efficiency of the ventilation, may be contributing. We consider
that there is, nevertheless, a need to establish minimum standards of floor
space per animal for housed beef cattle and that the commonly accepted
levels of 17-25 square feet are not always adequate, depending on the
type of floor used. We recommend that a minimum of 25 square feet
for beasts of more than 500 Ibs. liveweight should be imposed and that
this should apply to all forms of flooring.

165. Slatted floors are a feature of intensive housing to which we have
paid close attention in our own farm visits and in taking evidence and
we have studied, inter alia, the recent Agricultural Research Council pub-
lication “ Slatted Floors”. We do not think it possible to consider slatted
floors in isolation without aiso looking at the use of solid concrete floors
which are commonly provided for in-wintered animals. We note that this
subject has significance outside the field of intensive management.

166. The successful use of slatted floors as a simple means of preventing
dung from accumulating in the animals’ living quarters depends primarily
on achieving a satisfactory balance between the nervousness of the animals
in standing and moving on the surface (which tends to be increased as the
proportion of gap to slat increases) and the need to ensure that the gaps
are wide enough for the dung to pass through. There is no doubt that
cattle are less confident on slatted floors than on solid ones, particularly
when the slats are slippery, even though the effect may be mitigated by
running the slats parallel to the feed troughs so that from the animals’
viewpoint the surface looks less broken.

167. Consideration of flooring must extend to the ease and safety with
which the animal lies down and gets to its feet, as it is at this time that
the strain upon the hooves is likely to be greatest and that there is most
risk of bruising or other damage to the limbs and joints. The weight of
the animal is clearly of foremost importance. Young cattle appear more
comfortable on slats than mature animals and we consider this to be in
large part a reflection of the weight differential. Short intermittent periods
on slatted floors may have no effect whereas prolonged sojourns on them
may set up strain or stress. The permanent keeping of dairy cows on
totally slatted areas has not met with general success. The animals
demonstrate their discomfort by a reduction in the yield of milk. Yet when
slats are combined with some other form of flooring to give a variety of
surface the cows will use the slats for considerable periods of the day
without apparent discomfort.

45

168. We believe that in addition to the firmness of the surface and the
way in which it bears upon the hoof of the animal, it is necessary to take
account of the degree of confidence which the animal may feel in moving.
Most of the slatted floors that we have seen have been slippery. This
tendency is accentuated with the less efficient designs where the dung
does not clear quickly and the defect is likely to be worsened by high
humidity through bad ventilation in some densely stocked buildings. The
immediate consequence for the animals is that when they try to move
quickly, or when rising or lying down, they may slip and damage them-
selves. The immediate injury may only be slight but repetition of efforts
to recover their footing can cause strain to the limbs and joints and
set up a state of anxiety. We have observed swollen joints amongst
cattle kept wholly on slats, which we attribute to this cause. We have
also noticed animals lying with outstretched legs and we consider this
unusual position is adopted because of the discomfort of lying with sore
joints in the normal position on a hard floor. The animals may become
nervous of moving and this may become more pronounced with time.

169. In view of all these considerations, we cannot accept the use of
totally slatted floors as a permanent form of housing for beef animals. We
consider that slats have a useful function as a means of ensuring the
effective disposal of dung, and this is in the interests of the animal as much
as the producer, but we believe that where animals are permanently housed
indoors an alternative form of flooring should be available to them. We
recommend that not more than half of the intensively housed animal’s
living space should be slatted and that the non-slatted part should include
provision of bedding. We do not consider that a solid, unyielding floor
would be acceptable as an alternative and we recommend that bedding
should be provided for animals which are kept in houses or yards.

170. There are other points concerning slatted floors to which we think
attention should be given. Their suitability seems to us to depend very
much on small details of design and management and it is important that
they should be properly maintained. The surface should be such that the
animals do not slip and cannot damage their hooves. Attention to these
details makes a substantial difference to the comfort and thrift of the
animals.

171. Cattle are contented and productive within a wide range of tempera-
tures; but extreme fluctuations should be avoided. Adequate ventilation
is essential with housed cattle, as with other livestock. Our enquiries lead
us to believe that it is normally satisfactory. The greatest likelihood of
trouble occurs with highly stocked specialist houses, rather than with
covered yards, but we consider that producers and the advisory services
are fully alive to the importance of ventilation and that no further action
is called for at present.

172. Because of their greater size and individual value and because
generally they are not housed in such large numbers, cattle cause us less
concern as regards routine management inspection than other forms of
livestock. Nevertheless, we must stress that this is a most important aspect
of their welfare and it is possible to envisage circumstances with large units
and mechanical feeding where standards could fall below the desirable

46

level. As with all farm animals, we consider that such beasts should be
inspected at least once daily by a stockman with sufficient knowledge to
recognise signs of discomfort or disease. In this respect it is important that
sufficient lighting should be available. At present there is little or no
incentive to producers to control the light that is available to the animals ;
but some specialist houses, lit only by diffused daylight, are in use and
with regard to these we hope that the desirability of providing the animals
with sufficient light and the importance of there being adequate light for
efficient inspection will always be recognised.

47

CHAPTER 8

SHEEP

173. Sheep production in one form or another is common to ail parts of
Britain. Traditionally sheep flocks have been maintained on mountain
grazings, upland pastures and on lowland arable and grass lands. Sheep
have been kept as outdoor animals, protected by a full fleece in winter and
shorn annually at the first signs of warm weather in early summer. Breeds
have been evolved to suit the widely different environments of Britain, for
example, the Scotch Blackface, the Swaledale and the Welsh Mountain for
the mountain and hill areas and the Down breeds for the more productive
farming districts. The mountain flocks made economic use of land which
would otherwise contribute little to food production. They also form the
foundation stock for the production of crosses known as “ half-breds ”, which
are used as dams on lowland farms for the production of fat lambs sired by
Down rams. The sheep breeding industry is therefore loosely integrated,
lowland farms and upland farms being dependent on one another. Most
flocks lamb once a year in spring, mating taking place as the days shorten in
late summer. The gestation period is approximately five months.

174. In recent years stocking rates of ewes and lambs have been intensi-
fied, especially on very productive grassland where it is now quite common
to graze ten ewes and fifteen lambs an acre during the summer. Modern
intensive grazing methods have made this possible. It was soon realized,
however, that the heavy stocking of grassland in winter caused much damage
to pastures, particularly on clay soils, seriously reducing the early spring
growth of grass. Attempts were, therefore, made to relieve the pastures of
stock during the winter, housing of flocks being one of the methods adopted.
The practice is by no means widespread but experimental work has shown
that it is a practicable alternative to conventional outdoor wintering. The
breeding ewes, which are in the mid-pregnancy stage, are normally housed in
late December and remain indoors until after lambing in March and April.

175. Sheep housing takes varying forms, from existing farm buildings
adapted for the purpose, to houses specially erected and now known as sheep
sheds. From the animal health and welfare standpoint good ventilation is the
most important requirement. Bad ventilation leads to respiratory disorders,
a fact which is generally appreciated by flockmasters and farm buildings
advisers. Modern sheep sheds are, therefore, open at the front (except for the
containing wall) a feature which allows of ample fresh air within the shed.
The floor of the shed may be solid with litter on top, or slatted ; there is
normally an external concrete enclosure where the flock can take advantage
of occasional winter sunshine. Slats are usually constructed of timber; the
recommended size is about 14 inches wide with 1 inch gaps between the
slats but there is much variation in practice. Floor space requirement is
9 to 12 square feet per ewe depending on her size. The ewes appear
confident and comfortable on slatted floors and this is to be expected in

48

animals which by nature are adapted to moving and climbing over difficult
terrain. Troughs are used for fodder and may also act as dividing walls
between batches of 75-100 ewes.

176. The feeding of housed ewes is conventional, that is to say, hay
or silage forming the basis with a concentrate supplement being given during
the latter stages of pregnancy. Normally water is always available. Housing
restricts exercise but this has not led to any problems of animal health ;
parturition, lactation and general health are no different compared with ewes
kept out of doors. The system permits close supervision of the flock during
lambing and this has improved lambing rates because of the survival of
weaker lambs which, under outdoor conditions, often die of exposure in bad
weather within the first twenty-four hours. Lambing ewes occupy individual
pens for about two days or until the lambs are sufficiently strong to be turned
out with them to pasture.

177. We see no problems of animal welfare in housed breeding flocks.
Housing is particularly advantageous for older ewes unable to forage
adequately for themselves. Flocks are kept indoors during the worst weather
of winter and are normally well fed and supervised ; they have their freedom
for the greater part of the year. We do not see any need to impose mandatory
requirements and are satisfied that the acceptance of advice on the technical
and husbandry aspects of intensively housed breeding flocks should be
sufficient to safeguard the welfare of the animals.

178. The housing of ewe lambs (often referred to as ewe hoggs) during
their first winter, when they are between six and twelve months of age, has
been a traditional practice in North Yorkshire. In the upland districts of
that area “hogging barns” can still be seen and some are still used. The
practice has been revived, but only to a limited extent, for purely economic
reasons and now a number of hill farmers in Scotland, in the North of
England and in Wales regularly winter their ewe hoggs indoors. Traditionally,
the majority of hill farmers have sent their ewe hoggs away for the winter
to lowland farms at an agreed cost per head. The practice was sound
because the animals were given beiter grazing, during a vital growth period
of their lives, than that available in winter on hill farms. During the past ten
years the scarcity and high cost of lowland grazing for this purpose has
stimulated the adoption of other methods of wintering ewe hoggs, including
that of housing them.

179. The hoggs are brought into their winter quarters during November
or December and remain there until April when they are returned to hill
grazings. Housing varies, in some cases existing barns being used and in
others special purpose sheep sheds. Floors are normally solid with litter on
top in the traditional barns but slatted in the specially designed sheep sheds.
Although they are expensive, slats are desirable because they maintain the
feet of the sheep in firm, dry condition and, therefore, less prone to the
disease of foot rot. This is important for animals which are intended
to have a long breeding life. Floor space of 5 to 8 square feet per ewe hogg is
normally allowed depending on the size of the animals and most flocks
have daily access to an outdoor run on an enclosed part of the hill. They are
fed indoors on hay or silage and often allowed a small concentrate supplement.
Water is usually available at all times. We have no anxiety on animal

49

welfare grounds about this form of intensive husbandry. Confinement is
only for about six months in the life of the animal and may merely be
partial within this period. The young growing animal is protected from the
elements and is relieved of the need to search for its food. We see no necessity
for mandatory standards but would again stress the need for good ventilation
of sheep houses, a floor space allowance of 5-8 square feet per animal and
adequate feeding of young, growing animals.

180. The availability of barley as a fairly cheap concentrate and the decline
in the acreage of roots (swedes and mangolds) has led some farmers to fatten
lambs indoors rather than out of doors on the fodder crops mentioned. Lambs
are usually purchased in the autumn at about six months old and housed until
they are ready for slaughter. In other cases those lambs on the farm which
remain unfinished in autumn are taken indoors for a short fattening period.
Some hill farmers, rather than accept low prices for small store lambs, prefer
to purchase concentrated feeding stuffs and fatten their lambs indoors.

181. Existing buildings such as barns, haysheds or cattle yards are used
for housing fattening lambs with straw, shavings or sawdust for litter. Slatted
floors are unnecessary for animals which are destined for slaughter in the space
of a few weeks. The lambs are confined for the whole of the fattening period
which may be from six to twelve weeks or more, according to their condition
when housed and the type and level of diet. They may be fed hay, silage
or roots, plus a concentrate supplement, or alternatively a high con-
centrate ration with a restricted allowance of roughage. This form of intensive
husbandry as practised at present is acceptable. The lambs are generally
well-fed and are not exposed to the elements. We see no cause for concern
on animal welfare grounds provided there is good ventilation and plenty
of floor space.

182. Current intensive sheep husbandry merely involves confinement for
part of the year or part of the life of the animal. Permanent housing of
breeding flocks or intensive fattening of lambs from birth to slaughter is
not yet current practice. However, contemporary research on the use of
hormones to promote out of season breeding may eventually have practical
application. Furthermore, effort is being directed to developing more prolific
strains, while the artificial rearing and fattening of lambs is now technically
possible.

183. We believe that these advances in scientific knowledge could lead
to the development of full-scale intensive sheep husbandry systems. If so,
it should be the responsibility of the Farm Animal Welfare Standing Advisory
Committee (Chapter 11) to keep them under review.

50

CHAPTER 9

TURKEYS, DUCKS AND RABBITS

184. In addition to the main classes of livestock dealt with in preceding
chapters, there is a further range of animals and birds including turkeys, ducks,
quail, guinea-fowl, rabbits and mink, which may also be managed intensively.
Time has not permitted us to extend our study to all of these. Many of them
are kept only on a small scale and methods may still be in an experimental
stage but we have thought it important to devote some time to the welfare
of turkeys, rabbits and ducks. Although the evidence we have received has
included mention of the use of intensive methods with these animals, there
has been little specific comment on turkeys and almost none on rabbits or
ducks. We consider that the Farm Animal Welfare Standing Advisory Com-
mittee (Chapter 11) should review the use of intensive methods with classes of
livestock which we have not been able to cover, with a view to recommending
whether statutory controls may be necessary.

TURKEYS

185. Turkey production is a sizeable industry producing about eight
million table birds annually in England and Wales at a value of about £20
million and has undergone great changes in recent years. It has always been
a relatively specialised form of enterprise but has become increasingly so of
late with the introduction of high performance hybrid stock and new methods
of management. Like the domestic fowl, the turkey is capable of rapid genetic
improvement and the last ten years have seen considerable changes in the
pattern of the national flock. The traditional pure breeds are now rare;
hybrids are dominant and large-scale commercial breeders have tended to
replace the traditional breeders of pure varieties.

186. For convenience, turkey husbandry is often described under two
headings, breeding stock and fattening stock, but in practice methods of
housing may be similar. The distinction may have some relevance on welfare
grounds in that the skill and close supervision required in breeding and the
high individual value of many breeding birds makes it unlikely that they
will suffer through poor or careless management.

187. Mature turkeys are fairly hardy but the young require warmth and
protection in the first few weeks. Producers provide this by the use of
brooder systems of varying types. Wire-fioored tier brooders are commonly
used but with indoor deep litter, floor brooding is the normal practice. The
bird’s need for artificial warmth varies according to the time of the year
and external circumstances but the brooding period is never less than four
or more than eight weeks. After leaving the brooder some form of cover
is required for a short time but by 12 weeks turkeys are sufficiently hardy
and are often kept permanently outside.

188. Turkeys are amenable to a variety of production methods. Many
are still kept on the “range” or “compound ” systems where they are per-
manently out of doors on grass in wire netting compounds. With breeding

Sik

birds the stocking density under this method is normally about 200 birds per
acre but with birds intended for fattening it can be much higher, perhaps
up to 1,500 per acre. Fold units, where the birds are held in groups of 10-30
in portable wire pens, which are moved periodicaly across grassland, are still
popular, especially with breeding stock. Some simple forms of housing
are also in use. Ventilation is extremely important in turkey management ;
a common form of housing is, therefore, to provide pole-barns or sheds where
the upper part of the wall consists only of wire netting. The birds may stand
on bare earth or deep litter of straw or wood shavings. For breeding stock
in such housing each bird might have as much as 10 square feet or more
of floor space but with fattening stock, particularly younger birds, the density
would normally be much higher. The Motley system of housing consists
of slatted or wire-floored verandah cabins raised on pillars above the ground.
This was popular a few years ago as a method of controlling blackhead
infection and is still used by some producers but has been largely superseded
in recent years since the introduction of anti-blackhead drugs.

189. Controlled environment intensive housing offers less advantage with
turkeys than it does with chickens but it is quite widely used. With laying
stock control of lighting is advantageous to the producer as it enables the
laying season to be modified. For fattening stock the main advantage of con-
trolled environment lies in the conversion rates achieved. It is normally
reserved for smaller birds up to about 10 to 15 Ib. liveweight, which, with
floor brooding, can spend the whole of their lives (12-16 weeks) in the same
quarters. Stocking densities vary according to age. The normal average
levels are 14 square feet per bird up to about eight weeks and 24 square feet
from eight to twelve weeks, but individual producers sometimes exceed
these.

190. Individual battery cages may be used for breeding hens but this is
not yet common in Great Britain. They involve certain welfare considera-
tions ; the bird is closely restrained and with heavier birds there may be foot
damage from the wire floor. In view of these considerations and the possi-
bility that the use of individual cages may spread, we recommend that the
subject should be examined by the Farm Animal Welfare Standing Advisory
Committee.

191. As with other farm livestock, the welfare of turkeys depends largely
on the skill and care devoted to them. As stated earlier, we have few
anxieties on these grounds as regards breeding stock and we believe the
advisory functions to be performed under our proposals will lead to the
achievement of appropriate standards.

192. With fattening stock there are certain inherent difficulties in all the
commonly-practised forms of husbandry. The seasonality of turkey pro-
duction which encourages the build-up, in the autumn particularly, of large
flocks may lead to inadequate inspection.

193. Overstocking may be a cause of trouble on all systems. With range
units it leads to a deterioration of the ground on which the birds are kept
and a build-up of parasites. With indoor units or roofed yards it may
occur as the birds outgrow the available space and lead to pecking, vice
and social stress. It is not possible to recommend maximum densities for

at,

range systems; so much depends on climate, subsoil and the period of
use, but we advocate that inspectors should pay fullest heed to the need for
correct stocking rates. With indoor systems we recommend that birds up to
eight weeks should always have at least 14 square feet of floor each, 24 square
feet from eight to twelve weeks and 4 square feet above twelve weeks.
This should apply equally to open-sided houses as to the “ controlled environ-
ment” type. We recommend that wire floors should meet the specification
suggested for caged poultry.

194. Though there are difficulties over advocating standards of ventilation,
we believe that inspectors will need to give special consideration to it with
enclosed houses.

195. We consider the de-beaking of turkeys cruel and objectionable, as
it is with chickens, but we are not so confident that it could be eliminated
without there being an increase in cannibalism. Observance of the stocking
densities we recommend should help but even under good conditions out-
breaks of this vice may occur. We conclude reluctantly that the lesser evil
is to permit de-beaking to continue for a limited period as with loose-housed
poultry. We recommend that research should be put in hand with a view
to finding means to avoid the necessity for this practice and that the
matter should be kept under review by the Farm Animal Welfare Standing
Advisory Committee.

DUCKS

196. Ducks are less amenable to intensive keeping than any of the
classes of animals with which we have dealt. They are kept both for egg
production and as table birds but egg production is at present somewhat
below the pre-war annual average of about 150 million eggs. It is mostly small-
scale employing conventional methods and we do not consider it to raise
serious welfare questions. Table bird production has been rising over the
last ten years and numbered 4:3 million in 1964. New and more efficient
production methods have been introduced though it is problematic how
far they should be considered intensive. Ducks are fairly hardy under vary-
ing weather conditions but less adaptable than most farm animals and
the mature birds inevitably have to be given access to outdoor ranges.

197. The most intensive period of production occurs in the first month,
for part of which the ducklings need supplementary heat. Brooding arrange-
ments vary but the most common forms are batteries or tier brooders. With
batteries the whole compartment is heated whereas with tier brooders the
ducklings have a heated compartment and access to an unheated cage.
Ducklings are often moved to fresh quarters after seven to ten days and
may spend the remainder of their period before going outdoors at three
to four weeks in “coolers” of various types. Provided the birds are kept
at a moderate stocking density and the management is competent we see
no welfare problems being raised by these methods.

198. The competence of management is the most important factor in
the welfare of ducks once they move to outside quarters. Protection from
weather need be minimal but protection from predators is vital. Food
troughs and watering points must be sufficient in numbers and well-sited and
it is essential that land should not be over stocked.

53

199. For breeding stock and laying birds houses are usually provided in
which the ducks may be confined at night ; usually there are nesting boxes.
Provided the facilities are adequate and the management competent, we see
no welfare problems arising with this type of management.

200. A form of de-beaking is some times practised with ducks which
involves removing about one tenth of an inch of the upper mandible, usually
when the birds are around ten days old. The object is to prevent down-
pulling which may occur as the birds start to feather, leading to stress and
poor carcase quality. We consider such de-beaking to be objectionable and
while we are inclined to the opinion that it should be prohibited, we have
insufficient information to justify a positive recommendation ; we hope, how-
ever, that the Farm Animal Welfare Standing Advisory Committee will
give consideration to the subject with a view to a positive statement as soon
as practicable.

RABBITS

201. Intensive rabbit production has been mentioned in evidence given
to us and we have thought it necessary to include it in our survey. We have
found some difficulty in getting a comprehensive picture of table rabbit
production because there are no authoritative national statistics. Although
the term “broiler” rabbits is quite commonly used, there is in fact no
comparison between the scale and the methods of production of table
rabbits and broiler poultry. Rabbit production is intensive in that the
animals are housed, closely confined and their food (which has a high
protein content to encourage rapid growth) is brought to them.

202. In recent years a few big producers have attempted to make
improvements in breeding stock which might make rapid large-scale pro-
duction more economic. But for the foreseeable future the bulk of rabbits
produced in Great Britain (perhaps 90 per cent.) will continue to come from
small-scale units each producing in total a few hundred animals per annum.
Few of these units occupy a man full-time and many of them are run as
a hobby and are not strictly commercial in that labour costs may not be
taken into account.

203. The limitations which the rabbit imposes on production techniques
are related mainly to the dependence of the young on the mother. Attempts
to run numbers of does together have failed. The doe and the litter (which
commonly numbers about six but may be much larger) must be kept
together as a unit until weaning at around four weeks. Most producers find
it convenient to keep litters together beyond that stage until they are
ready for slaughter at about eight weeks. Secondly, it is difficult to
economise on overheads. In fact, rabbits need more attention than do other
forms of livestock ; in large-scale commercial units labour costs are high,
partly because management is a skilled operation. Rabbits are nervous
and sensitive, and so respond to sympathetic treatment.

204. Though the traditional habit of gathering green stuff for rabbits
continues, production on any significant scale involves purchase of food and
this is likely to be as expensive. The normal feeding regime is based on
the use of commercial compound feeding pellets with supplementary hay
for roughage.

54

205. Housing may vary widely. Some purpose-built “battery” cages,
with mechanised feeding and droppings disposal are available but the
capital cost is high and the majority of producers build their own equipment.
The most common installation is a hutch or cage which, for fattening stock,
is usually about 4 feet by 2 feet. The buck is kept in a similar sized cage.
Where the same cages are used from birth to maturity, a nesting box is
provided for part of the time.

206. The floors of the cages may be solid with some litter but producers
often find it preferable to use wire mesh floors as being more hygienic
and labour-saving. Though rabbits seem comfortable on these floors there
is a welfare problem in that sore hocks are occasionally encountered, par-
ticularly among heavier breeding animals. Some producers believe this
soreness to be a genetic fault; it is said that some strains do not react in
this way. We hope our suggestion as to flooring in paragraph 208 would
meet this point. |

207. Rabbits need protection from extremes of climate. Adequate
ventilation is vital and most producers recognise that this is the best way of
avoiding respiratory troubles.

208. We do not believe it necessary to recommend mandatory controls
upon rabbit production, but we consider, in view of the possibility of changes
in the structure of the industry, that the Farm Animal Welfare Standing
Advisory Committee should keep it under review. We suggest that, for the
time being, cages for single animals should provide a minimum of 1 square
foot per Ib. liveweight ; multiple cages should provide 4 square foot per Ib.
liveweight housed. The floors should be of rigid square wire mesh giving
a smooth upper surface. We do not consider that light wire netting is
suitable. It is important that producers should keep in touch with, and
take advice from, the Veterinary Service in this respect.

55

CHAPTER 10

STOCKMANSHIP, EDUCATION AND TRAINING

209. We have been impressed with the importance of the standard of
management and stockmanship for the welfare of farm livestock. All the
evidence we have received from individuals and organisations with practical
experience of farming has emphasised this and our own observations have
been confirmatory. We are convinced that it is of great significance for all
kinds of livestock management but that intensive methods demand an even
higher standard than more traditional ones. This is because intensification
leads to greater sophistication of methods of husbandry demanding more
knowledge, skill and attention from those in charge and because the
increased scale of the enterprises tends to result in each man being respon-
sible for many more animals. Intensive livestock husbandry is some times
loosely referred to as “‘ factory farming” with the implication that it is pos-
sible for farming to be a purely mechanical process eliminating the need
for any great human skill or judgement in day-to-day supervision. The
facts do not justify this belief. Large-scale operations and carefully designed
buildings can facilitate the use of mechanical aids, but in our opinion the
basic requirement of expert human supervision remains and is, indeed,
enhanced with intensive methods. We consider it probable that future pro-
gress in methods of animal husbandry is likely to require a still higher
standard of management and stockmanship, rather than to diminish the
importance of the human element. Consequently we have given thought to
how the training and selection of personnel might be improved.

210. The qualities which are required to make a successful stockman are
not easy to assess. He must have an adequate knowledge of the particular
kind of animal with which he is concerned, its habits and behaviour, its
nutritional and environmental requirements, its reproduction, and its liability
to sickness and infection. He must have a full understanding of the
husbandry system that is being operated and of the likely reactions of the
animals to the regime. He must be skilful in carrying out the various opera-
tions involved. Given an appropriate level of intelligence and dexterity, these
are qualities which he can acquire from formal teaching and practical
instructions. There is, however, the more personal quality of “being good
with animals ” which is difficult to define but which we have been assured,
and we accept, is very important. It can be recognised both by the confi-
dence and understanding with which the person tends the animals and by
their response in showing greater contentment and thrift. Many people
believe this quality to be inborn but experience with animals clearly has
much to do with its development. It is probable that persons who have this
quality can impart it in large measure by practical example, if not by
formal instruction. In our opinion much attention should be paid to it in
the training of stockmen and means should be found to take it fully into
account in assessing their quality.

56

211. We believe that the care of animals could be greatly improved by
the more extended use of educational facilities for stockmen and the wider
recognition of the value of such training in association with practical train-
ing on the farm. This is a subject on which we hesitate to touch, both
because we are not as a Committee specially qualified to comment on it and
because it falls partly within the scope of the Advisory Committee on Agricul-
tural Education appointed by the National Advisory Council on Education
for Industry and Commerce. Moreover it will also fall in part to the Train-
ing Board for Agriculture which we are glad to learn is likely to be set up
next year. We have discussed with expert witnesses the relationship of educa-
tion to our field of enquiry and, being convinced of its relevance, we believe
that we can make some useful comments regarding the training of stockmen.
We use the word stockman to describe the person whose job it is to look
after the animals; some of our comments will apply also to the training
of those employed at the rather higher level of supervisor or manager. We
hope it will be deemed appropriate for our views to be referred to the
Advisory Committee.

212. The changes which have taken place in agriculture recently have
posed problems for agricultural education. The decline in size of the farm
labour force and the speed of change resulting from technical innovations make
it difficult to foresee both the scale and nature of the educational facilities
which will be required in the future. Theoretical instruction needs to be
combined with realistic practical instruction with installations such as are in
current use in the agricultural industry and which consequently may need
to be on a fairly large scale. The rise of intensive husbandry and the
sophistication of methods appear likely to result in an increasing need for
trained technicians with aptitiude for the care of animals. We recommend
therefore that the provision and scale of appropriate training facilities should
be reviewed and that all possible steps to encourage the employment of
trained stockmen on intensive husbandry units should be taken.

213. Agricultural education in England and Wales is at present provided
on three fairly distinct levels. First, there are the degree courses of three or
more years’ duration provided by a number of the Universities. Secondly,
there are the diploma courses, involving two or three years’ study, provided
by the five Agricultural Colleges in England and Wales and two of the L.E.A.
Institutes of Agriculture. These are the levels of training that would be
appropriate to a potential manager. Thirdly, there are the one year courses
and supplementary courses which are offered by all the L.E.A. Farm Institutes
(36 in all). This is the level from which one might expect stockmen to be
recruited. The main farm institute course is in general agriculture for the
National Certificate in Agriculture but almost all of the Institutes provide
additional courses, adapted to the needs of agriculture in the district. The
National Certificate course includes some basic instruction in animal husbandry
and some of the other courses specialise in this subject or some branch of it.
The pattern of agricultural education is rather different in Scotland but instruc-
tion in stockmanship below diploma level is available under College or
L.E.A. auspices in a variety of courses.

214. The education of a stockman should do two things in so far as animal
welfare is concerned, as we have outlined in paragraph 210. The first,
and major one, is to develop in the student (who will have spent some time

=|

on the farm previously) the understanding and skill which he will need for
tending the animals. The second, and in many respects equally important,
is to develop as far as possible his capacity for being good with animals and
to divert to other occupations those who are temperamentally or otherwise
incapable of acquiring this facility, so as to ensure that they do not have
charge of stock. Our enquiries lead us to believe that those responsible for
Farm Institutes are often alive to this latter point and take it into account in
recommending students for particular positions. Inevitably, only a minority
of those recruited as stockmen come from Farm Institutes. The majority start
without any evidence of their aptitude for the care of animals and do not
receive any formal training as stockmen. ‘They are expected to learn by
experience on the job. We are dissatisfied that this should be so and we hope
that everything possible will be done to encourage the recruitment of trained
stockmen for all types of enterprise, especially intensive ones and to develop
the training of young workers for such enterprises.

215. We think that there may be a need to widen the range of courses
available to the potential stockman. In saying this we take account of, and
commend, the initiative taken by some education authorities to develop
additional and supplementary courses in animal husbandry. We hope that
this trend will continue and will be given full support by the responsible
authorities. We hope too that our comments about the welfare of intensively
kept animals will be borne in mind in the organisation of such courses. The
courses, which should have a strong practical element, should include infor-
mation on the subjects we have outlined in paragraph 210. These subjects
should be taught in the context of the particular types of husbandry which
are in use and of the animal’s reaction to them. This may involve the use
of fairly large and costly installations, which may be difficult to justify at
small Institutes. Co-operation between Institutes and rationalisation of
courses might go some way to overcome this difficulty, but the greater need
is for co-operation between the industry and educational establishments so
that students can obtain practical experience in a commercial setting. Greater
use might also be made of “ sandwich ” courses.

216. It is important to try to induce some sense of vocation in the
students ; there is a real danger that large-scale intensive methods involving
great numbers of animals, possibly in surroundings which are uncomfortable
to man, can lead to a debasement in the stockman’s attitude to the lives for
which he has responsibility. A stockman obviously cannot be fully quali-
fied to deal with all the difficulties that arise in tending his animals. But
it is essential that he has the basic information to be able to judge when
to call for expert advice.

217. We appreciate that improvements in education cannot have an
early effect on the general levels of stockmanship. In particular, the rela-
tively small proportion of the total number of stockmen which the Institutes
supply, makes it difficult to influence the general standard. We should hope
that the spread of day release courses will prove helpful here. Day release
training is proving increasingly popular in general agriculture (though it is
significant to note that in poultry husbandry, where many of the larger
enterprises believe that they are best qualified to train their own staff, it

58

has found little support). We hope too, that with the establishment of the
Training Board greater attention will be given to training on the farm.

218. The wage structure in agriculture pays little regard to formal quali-
fications. Stockmen are more likely to be rewarded for their results than
for the training they have received. This is a powerful factor inhibiting.
the educational system from achieving the improved standards of skill
and enlightenment which intensive methods demand, while not necessarily
otherwise contrary to the interests of animal welfare. Nevertheless, we
consider that recognition of suitable qualifications for stockmen in the wage
structure is desirable.

219. The mandatory standards which we have recommended we consider
should be sufficient to ensure so far as is possible acceptable conditions
for the animals given an average level of management and stockmanship.
An Inspectorate will be required to enforce these regulations and we believe
that advisory work will be a necessary and complementary part of its
duties. We are of opinion that such advisory work can be a very valuable
supplement to the education of stockmen, both those that have been trained
on the job and those who have formal qualifications, and can help materially
in bringing about a general improvement in standards of animal care. We
think it important, in the achievement of this general improvement, that
there should be close contact and co-operation at all levels between the
staff of farm institutes and the Veterinary Service.

59

CHAPTER 11

IMPLEMENTATION

220. We have described in Chapter 3 the law relating to animal welfare.
It has been strongly represented to us that the present state of the law is
inadequate in relation to the welfare and protection of farm animals. The
Protection of Animals Act 1911 (and the corresponding Scottish Act of
1912) confers little protection on farm animals because of the inadequacy
of its definitions in relation to farming practices, and the inability of the
authorities to take effective enforcement action under it. In framing our
recommendations therefore, we have realised that these will involve new
legislation, specifically relating to the welfare of animals kept for food
production.

221. At the same time, we are of the opinion that the standards we have
recommended may quickly become obsolescent. Agriculture is progressive
and we would be concerned if our recommendations had the effect of putting
the industry in a permanent strait-jacket. This is why we suggest later that,
under safeguards, there must be freedom to experiment with new techniques.
We also feel most strongly that, in the light of further experience, it must
be possible to modify any standards laid down without the necessity for
constantly amending the main legislative instrument. Therefore we recom-
mend that any Act necessary to make our recommendations effective should
be in the form of an enabling Act, so that Statutory Instruments can be made
to implement them and to give early effect to desirable changes which may
prove necessary.

222. Continuing developments in education and training for stockman-
ship, together with a stimulation of effort on the part of all those who re-
gularly visit farms in an advisory capacity, will further help to safeguard
the walfare of farm animals. There is, however, a more difficult area to
define or to provide for, but our task would not be complete without the
attempt.

223. There are many factors affecting the welfare of animals which are
difficult or impossible to control effectively by statutory requirements (for
example, the quality of stockmanship) but which, individually or cumulatively,
may have a profound effect. We are concerned that it could still be
possible for animals to be kept in full conformity with the standards
we have recommended and yet to suffer “pain” or “cruelty ” through, for
example, neglect, or wilful refusal to accept advice on measures which
would remedy their conditions. Again, we do not believe that the 1911 Act
provides sufficient cover for this situation and we consider additional legisla-
tion to be necessary. One of the problems is to establish a clearer definition
of “ suffering’? and in this respect we have studied with great interest the
Report of the Departmental Committee on Experiments on Animals (The
Littlewood Report). We endorse the concept of suffering which they provide
in paragraph 181 of that report—

“ (a) discomfort (such as may be characterised by such negative signs
as poor condition, torpor, diminished appetite) ;

60

(b) stress (i.e. a condition of tension or anxiety predictable or readily
explicable from environmental causes whether distinct from or
including physical causes) ;

(c) pain (recognisable by more positive signs such as struggling, scream-
ing or squealing, convulsions, severe palpitation).”

224. We recommend that any Act to provide for the welfare of farm
animals resulting from our Report should include this definition within it,
and should make it an offence to cause, or permit to continue, avoidable
suffering so defined. It should then be open to the appropriate inspecting
authority, at senior levels, to prosecute for this offence when warning and
advice have been offered and disregarded. We do not envisage that many
such cases would come before the Courts. But the sanctions provided by
such legal powers would greatly assist the inspectorate in its task of covering
the entire field of animal welfare on farms. In the last resort the Courts
should have the power to order such action as will terminate the suffering,
for example by treatment, disposal, or destruction.

225. We recognise that the enforcement of our recommendations will
prove a formidable task. With this in mind, we have endeavoured to cast
them in as simple a form as possible, and we would deprecate any attempt
to complicate them by, for example, devising over-elaborate schedules of
space and ventilation requirements. Such a move would not be in the best
interests of either the animals or the industry, since it could well make
enforcement impracticable and compliance a source of constant difficulty.
A period of notice would, of course, have to be provided in some instances
in order that the industry could adjust itself within the framework of the
new requirements. Thereafter, we recommend that the appropriate authority,
to enforce the Regulations would be the State Veterinary Service under
the control of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We envisage
that the routine inspections would be undertaken by technical staff under
the supervision of the professional veterinary officers; but that the advice
of senior professional staff would be sought before any prosecution was
initiated.

226. We have considered the possibility of a licensing system for all
farms with livestock or poultry but have rejected this idea as cumbersome
and unnecessary. We recommend that the Act and Regulations made under
it be enforced through the Courts, as are the Farm Safety Regulations.

227. We feel that there are many aspects of this whole problem of animal
welfare on farms where more knowledge and experience is required before
final conclusions can be reached and which must be kept under review. New
methods of husbandry may arise, or other animals may be exploited, for
which controls may be required. It will be necessary for somebody to advise
the Minister on how to proceed with these studies or investigations which
we have referred to earlier in the report; and to suggest further lines of
study arising from the experience of the working of our recommendations
or from these new developments. In addition, as suggested in paragraph 221
above, there must be facilities for experimentation with new techniques which
may necessitate some dispensation from any legal requirements arising from
our recommendations. The same body could advise the Minister on the
issue of licences giving such dispensation to approved projects.

228. We recommend, therefore, that provision should be made in the
Act for the establishment of a Farm Animal Welfare Standing Advisory

61

Committee to advise the Minister on all these matters. It should not be
representative of the interests concerned, but the persons appointed should
serve because of their knowledge and experience in various fields and their
personal qualities. The Committee should not be more than ten in number,
and should include within its membership a veterinarian, an expert on
animal behaviour or comparative psychology, a zoologist or physiologist,
persons knowledgeable in animal husbandry and farm buildings and a legal
expert. Members of the Ministry staff should be consulted as necessary.

229. There are two further general points which we wish to make. First,
it will be seen that we have found it necessary to make recommendations
which would have the effect of laying down certain basic standards for
animal welfare. We would most emphatically wish to state, however, that in
our opinion the great majority of farmers are concerned to ensure the welfare
and health of their stock, and our Report should not be read as being in any
way a condemnation of the attitude of farmers in general. We feel it
necessary to stress this conviction to avoid misunderstanding.

230. Secondly, we recognise that the effect of some of our recommenda-
tions may be to increase costs in certain sectors of the industry, at least
in the initial stages. We believe that public concern about animal welfare
on farms is such that this will be understood and consumers will be
prepared to meet any marginal extra costs. We would, however, be con-
cerned if the standards we have recommended for adoption in this country
had the result of encouraging imports produced overseas under systems
contrary to these. This might largely invalidate the intention of our Report ;
we therefore recommend that the Government take such steps as may be
practicable to ensure that it does not happen.

231. Finally we would like to thank all those who have helped us in
our deliberations. We could not have completed our task within the time
without the fullest co-operation from the industry, the welfare societies,
Ministry officers and others who have given freely to their time and facilities.
In particular we would wish to name two people. Mr. A. G. Beynon, our
Veterinary Assessor, has devoted a great deal of his time and energy to
assisting us; we have been greatly helped by his wise counsel on pro-
fessional matters and we gladly take this opportunity of thanking him. We
also wish to place on record our gratitude to our Secretary, Mr. David
Fvans. This is in no way a mere formality. The task of co-ordinating the
Committee’s work and producing the Report within our time-table has been
an arduous one; and the fact that he has discharged it so cheerfully and
efficiently, whilst at the same time developing close and friendly relations
with every member of the Committee, is an indication of the debt we owe
him and which we gladly acknowledge.

62

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The principles of animal welfare on which we have based our
judgements are set out fully in Chapter 4. From applying these principles
to intensive ‘husbandry methods we have concluded that the use of such
methods should not in itself be regarded as objectionable and may often
benefit the animals; but certain practices are contrary to animal welfare
and need to be controlled. We have therefore made recommendations for
statutory provisions and these are set out in paragraph 4 below et seq.

2. In addition to the mandatory standards which we recommend we have
concluded that there are some practices and standards which are generally
desirable in the interest of animal welfare but which should not, for
various reasons, be given statutory force. These are generally recognized
as conforming with good husbandry. They are too numerous and, in some
cases, complex, to summarise here but they are fully set out in the relevant
‘parts of the text. It is our belief that these suggestions should be
incorporated into advice to producers which we envisage will be a routine
part of the work of the State Veterinary Service in enforcing mandatory
standards.

3. We believe the qualities and skills of those responsible for animals
are most important for their welfare. We cover this subject in Chapter 10
and we recommend that the provision and scale of appropriate training
facilities should be reviewed and all possible steps to encourage the
employment of trained stockmen on intensive husbandry units should be
taken.

Recommended statutory provisions

4. The existing animal welfare legislation does not adequately safeguard
farm animals and a new Act is needed incorporating a fuller definition of
suffering and enabling Ministers to make regulations requiring conditions
for particular animals. (224)

5. The Act and regulations should be enforced by the State Veterinary
Service, and a Statutory Farm Animal Welfare Standing Advisory Committee
should be set up to advise Ministers. (225, 228)

6. Steps should be taken to ensure that the intention of this report
is not prejudiced by imports of food produced under unacceptable systems.
(230)

7. The quantities of mineral additives in manufactured feedingstuffs
should be clearly stated on the container. The feeding of arsenical com-
pounds should be prohibited save on veterinary prescription for treatment.
(39)

Poultry

8. Cages for laying poultry should not contain more than three birds.
The three-bird cage should measure at least 20 inches wide and 17 inches
deep and have an average height of 18 inches with the lowest part not
less than 16 inches. For two birds the width should be 16 inches and for
one bird 12 inches. The floor of the cage should consist of rectangular
metal mesh, no finer than number 10 gauge. (65, 67, 68)

9. The gangway in front of any vertical tier should be at least two
thirds as wide as the tier is high and the floor of the bottom cages should

63

be 12 inches above the level of the gangway. No more than three tiers
should be permitted from any one level. (73)

10. Deep litter laying birds should have at least 3 square feet of floor
space per bird; where deep litter is combined with a raised wire floor or
slatted area this should not exceed one third of the total and the allowance
should be at least 24 square feet per bird overall. (79)

11. Loose housing of poultry on wire floors or slats should be prohibited.
(81)

12. Broilers above six weeks should have at least one square foot of
floor space. (90)

13. Poultry houses should be provided with lighting bright enough for
all the birds to be seen clearly for routine inspection. (82)

De-beaking

14. The de-beaking of battery birds and broilers should be prohibited.
The de-beaking of deep litter birds, turkeys and ducks should be reviewed
by the Farm Animal Welfare Standing Advisory Committee with a view to
early prohibition. The use of spectacles or blinkers should be prohibited and
dubbing should be prohibited in birds of more than 5 days of age. (98, 99,
100, 101, 102, 195, 200)

Pigs
15. Housed pigs, between 150 Ib.—210 Ib. liveweight, should have a

minimum of eight square feet of floor space per animal. Those above 210 lb.
should have a minimum of 10 square feet. (118)

16. Pig houses should be provided with lighting bright enough for all
the animals to be seen clearly for routine inspection. (122)

17. Docking should be prohibited save as remedial treatment by a
veterinary surgeon. (124)

18. Pregnant sows should not be kept without daily exercise in quarters
which do not permit them to turn round and, in any case, should not be
tethered indoors. (125)

Cattle

19. Milk substitute or other manufactured diets for calves should be so
reinforced with iron in a suitable form as to ensure that the normal intake of
the animal is in no wise deficient in this element. All calves should be
provided with palatable roughage daily at all ages from a week after
birth. The obsolescent practice of periodic bleeding should be made illegal.
(145)

20. The yoking or close tethering of calves, except for short periods
and for specific purposes, should be prohibited. (148)

21. Individual pens for calves should be of a sufficient size to allow
the calf freedom of movement including the ability to turn round, and
those for calves of 200 to 300 Ib. liveweight should measure at least 5 feet by
3 feet 6 inches ; the sides should not be solid above 2 feet from the floor. Pens
for accommodating more than one calf of this size should not allow less than
12 square feet per animal. (150)

64

22. Calves should be provided with sufficient clean straw or other bedding
on which to lie down. (152)

23. The restraint by prolonged or permanent short tethering or yoking
of animals being fattened for beef production should be prohibited forthwith
and all forms of tethering should be prohibited as soon as practicable. (162)

24. Housed cattle of more than 500 lb. liveweight should each have a
minimum space of 25 square feet and this should apply to all forms of
flooring. (164)

25. Bedding should be provided for animals kept in houses or yards.
Where slatted floors are used, not more than half the animals’ living space

should be slatted and the non-slatted part should include provision of
bedding. (169)

Turkeys

26. Housed turkeys should have at least 14 square feet of floor space up
to eight weeks ; 24 square feet from 8 to 12 weeks and 4 square feet above
12 weeks. (193)

27. Wire floors should meet the specification suggested for caged poultry
and the use of individual battery cages for turkeys should be examined by
the Farm Animal Welfare Standing Advisory Committee. (190, 193)

Other animals

28. We do not recommend statutory standards for housing of sheep or
rabbits but we believe that husbandry practices for these should be reviewed
by the Farm Animal Welfare Standing Advisory Committee. (183, 208)

F. W. RoGERS BRAMBELL (Chairman).
D. S. BARBOUR.
ISOBEL BARNETT.
T. K. Ewer.
ALEC HOBSON.
H. PircHFORTH.
WALTER R. SMITH.
A. G. BEYNON (Assessor). W. H. THORPE.
Davip Evans (Secretary). F. J. WINSHIP.

65

APPENDIX I

Evidence presented

The following gave written and oral evidence:

Animal Health Trust ...

British Chicken Association ...

British Egg Association

British Veterinary Association

Denkavit N.V. ...
Mrs. Ruth Harrison.

D. Harrison, Esq.,
A.M.T.P.I.

F.R.LB.A.,

Humane Farming Campaign

National Agricultural Advisory Ser-
vice

National Farmers’ Union

National Federation of Women’s
Institutes

Pig Health Control Association

W. R. Wooldridge, Esq., M.Sc.,
DavVisc. ERGY 5.40 RC.

D. o: Ie ROUnsOn.. sd... boc.
M.R.C.V.S.

K. C. Sellars, Esq., B.Sc:, M.RiC.V°sS,,
D.V.S.M.

R. F. Gordon, Esqg., M.R.C.V.S.

A. L. Ogden, Esq.

D. W. B. Sainsbury, Esq., M.A., B.Sc.,
Ph.D., M.R.C.V.S.

D. N. Lowe, Esq.

D. F. Oliver, Esq., B.Sc., M.R.C.V.S.

J. S. Garside, Esq., Ph.D., M.R.C.V.S.,
D.V.S.D.

C. M. Gould, Esq, M.A., B.Sc.,
M.R.C.V.S.

S. L. Hignett, Esq., B.Sc., M.R.C-V.S.

D. W. B. Sainsbury, Esq., M.A., B.Sc.,
Ph.D., M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. W. A. Pesch.

M. Fryer, Esq.

Miss Margaret Cooper.

Miss Irene M. Heaton.

The Very Revd. Eryl S. Thomas,
M.A.

Revd. James Turnbull.

W. Emrys Jones, Esq., B.Sc. (Agric.).

R. Coles, Esq., M.Sc. (Agric.), M.Sc.
(Econ.), B.A., Ph.D., D.Sc. (Agric.).

T. Allsop, Esq.

D. C. Barber, Esq., M.R.A.C.

R. Saunders, Esq.
M. A. B. Bolton, Esq., M.A., J.P.
T?’Partitt, (Hs:

Miss K. Doman, M.B.E.
Miss M. R. Withall.

A. V. Pelly, Esq., M.V.O., N.D.A.
R. F. W. Goodwin, Esq., M.A., Ph.D.,
Bisc., M:RiC.Y-S:

Pig Industry Development Authority E. P. Day, Esq.
D. R. Melrose, Esq. B.Sc.,
M.R.C.V.S.
G. White, Esq.
I. C. Beattie, Esq., B.Sc., Dip.Agric.,

M.Agric.Sc.

Poultry and Egg Producers of Great T. J. Aley, F.P.A.
Britain.

Quality Veal Producers’ Association A. F. Paton, Esq.

J. R. Byron, Esq.
F. J. Cooper, Esq.
Miss J. M. Malcolm.

Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Professor G. F. Boddie, B.Sc.,
F.R.F.E., F.R.C.V.S.
R. E. Glover, Esq., F.R.C.V.S., M.A.,
D.Sc.
G. N. Gould, Esq., F.R.C.V.S., J.P.

Royal Society for the Prevention of R. F. Rattray, Esq., M.A., Ph.D.
Cruelty to Animals. Lt.-Col. D. I. C. Tennant, M.R.C.V.S.,
M.R.S.H.
Miss O. R. Cossons.
J. Hall, Esq., O.B.E.
B. P. Howell, Esq., M.B.E.
Major Priestley.

Scottish Farmers’ Union ... - W. Campbell, Esq.
J. L. Blackley, Esq.
H. W. Melville, Esq.

Central Council of Societies in Scot- L. G. Langwill, Esq., C.A.
land for Prevention of Cruelty to G. S. Drysdale, Esq., A.C.LS.
Animals.

Universities Federation for Animal Professor A. i Phillipson,
Welfare. M.R.C.V.S., M.A., Ph.D. (C.A,),
D.V.Sc. (Copenhagen), F.R.S.E.
R. Ewbank, Esq., B.V.Sc., M.R.C.V.S.
Major C. W. Hume, O.B.E., M.C.,
B.Sc., M.1.Biol.
Major W. S. Scott, M.R.C.V.S.
M. Jones, Esq., B.V.M.S., M.R.C.V.S.

The following gave written evidence :

Agricultural Land Service.

Mrs. A. M. Alien.

J. C. Anakin, Esa.

Animal Defence and Anti-Vivisection Society.
Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry.
Association of Green Crop Driers.

Miss Gwendolen Barter.

J. R. Beilerby, Esq.

67

Mark Bourne, Esq.

B. H. Bridge, Esq.

A. Brownlee, Esq., M.R.C.V.S.

O. H. Cantrill, Esq.

Council of Justice to Animals and Humane Slaughter Association.
Country Landowners’ Association.

Mrs. Doris Davy, M.A.

Ecclesbourne Research Laboratories.

Miss M. A. Everitt.

Farm Buildings Association.

H. P. Godfrey, Esq.

Dr. W. A. M. Gordon.

B. Kirby., Esq., B. Vet. Med., M.R.C.V.S.

G. Knowles, Esq.

The Laying Battery Manufacturers Association of Great Britain.
Professor Kenneth Mather, C.B.E., D.Sc., F.R.S.
Professor R. A. McCance, C.B.E., F.R.S.

Roger Moody, Esq.

National Agricultural Advisory Association.
Mrs. R. H. Oakley.

Rey. K. R. Pilcher.

Poultry Liaison.

Mrs. Jean Pyke.

L. Reginald Reakes, Esq.

Lieut. Cmdr. G. Reynolds, M.B.E., R.N.

Royal Institute of British Architects.

A. Robertson, Esq., F.R.S.

Kenneth Sandeman, Esq.

D. M. Skinner, Esq.

Charles Spalton & Sons Ltd.

Stockbuildings Ltd.

J. Symons, Esq.

John Syrett, Esq.

The Soil Association.

Thornber Brothers.

Ulster Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
T. E. Whittle, Esq., B.Sc., N.D.P., F.P.H.

Dr. D. G. M. Wood-Gush.

Oral evidence only:
J. S. Hall, Esq., B.Sc.
Sydney Jennings, Esq., M.R.C.V.S.

When the Committee visited Denmark they attended a meeting at the
Danish Ministry of Agriculture at which the following were present:

Herr J. Jensen

Herr J. Premé rae a
Herr L. Simonsen inistry of Agriculture.

Herr H. Wanscher

Herr D. Davidsen—National Poultry Breeding Committee.
Fr. E. Mols—Ministry of Justice.

Herr A. Pedersen—Agricultural Council.

Dr. C. Wederlin—Chief Veterinary Officer.

68

APPENDIX II
Visits made by the Committee

Alexander & Angell Ltd., Brockworth, Gloucestershire.

D. Holden, Esq., Yewtree Farm, Gotherington, Gloucestershire.

M. Wilson, Esq., West End Farm, Darrington, Pontefract, Yorkshire.

Perry Brothers Ltd., Kinsley Carr Farm, Hemsworth, Pontefract, Yorkshire.

J. and E. Dickinson Ltd., Longley Farm, Holmfirth, Huddersfield, Yorkshire.

J. T. Calligan, Esq., Mill Hill Farms Ltd., Mirfield, Yorkshire.

K. Oakes, Esq., Grange Farm, Batley, Yorkshire.

T. W. Sturdy, Esq., Newsholme Farm, Spofford, Harrogate, Yorkshire.

J. H. Dent, Esq., Park House Farm, Walshford, Yorkshire.

J. S. Richards, Esq., Yorkshire Turkey Producers, Kexby, Yorkshire.

D. Friday, Esq., Chequer Tree Farm, Cranbrook, Kent.

R. Denny, Esq., Merrieweather, Mayfield, Sussex.

J. Worley, Esq., Moat Farm, Chart Sutton, Kent.

P. Harker, Esq., Court Lodge Farm, Harrietsham, Kent.

J. L. Hocken, Esq., Budgeside, Hawkenbury, Kent.

P. Cazalet, Esq., Home Farm, Shipbourne, Kent.

A. S. Furniss, Esq., Old Mill House Farm, Crowborough, Sussex.

O. S. Simon, Esq., Crowland Farm, Ancaster, Nottinghamshire.

J. B. Eastwood, Esq., Lurchar Farm, Farnsfield, Nottinghamshire.

A. Dulson, Esq., Coxmoor Farm, Kirkby in Ashfield, Nottinghamshire.

D. Watkinson, Esq., Griffen Farms Ltd., Lacock, Chippenham, Wiltshire.

W. E. and D. T. Cave Ltd., Lower House Farm, Everleigh, Wiltshire.

W. Carney, Esq., South Grove Farm, Collingbourne, Wiltshire.

British Beef Company, Brown Street Farm, Stowmarket, Suffolk.

T. Brennand Robinson, Esq., Lolworth Grange, Lolworth, Cambridgeshire.

Peter Ward, Esq., Meldreth Turkey Farms, Meldreth, Cambridgeshire.

J. A. Clayton, Esq., Ivy Farm, Royston, Cambridgeshire.

C. J. Millard, Esq., Eltisley, Cambridgeshire.

J. T. Beresford, Esq., Manor Farm, Chilmark, Wiltshire.

Christopher Hill Ltd., Donhead St. Andrew, near Shaftesbury, Wiltshire.

Peter Stroude, Esq., Home Farm, Long Stanton, Cambridgeshire.

K. Day, Esq., Flat Road, Willingham, Cambridgeshire.

Professor M. McG. Cooper, University of Newcastle Department of Agriculture,
Cockle Park, Northumberland.

Major W. Rayner Stowell, Harelaw, Longhorsley, Northumberland.

Andrew Robinson, Esq., Glantlees, Newton on Moor, Longframlington, Northum-
berland.

Muir of Pert Farms Ltd., Tealing, Dundee, Angus.

Messrs. Sainsbury Ltd., Inverquhomery, Longside, Aberdeenshire.

A. R. Manson, Scoutbog, Oldmeldrum, Aberdeenshire.

Maitland Mackie, Esq., Mackie’s Aberdeen Dairy Co., Ltd., Easterton and
Westerton, Rothienorman, Aberdeenshire.

G. Wishart, Esq., Saphock, Oldmeldrum, Aberdeenshire.

R. A. Evans, Esq., Gwern Hywel Bach, Yspytty, Betws-y-Coed, Carnarvonshire.

A. Ellis Jones, Esq., Bryn Carcut, Llangernyw, Denbighshire.

G. Brooks, Esq., Ystrad Farm, Denbighshire.

R. H. Bailey, Esq., Brynhyfryd Poultry Farm, Ruthin, Denbighshire.

69

A. Bletcher, Esq., Argoed Hall Farm, Mold, Flintshire.

Culham Farms, Hurley, near Maidenhead, Berkshire.

J. Carlisle, Esa., Cherryvale, Spa Road, Ballynahinch, County Down.

Agricultural Research Institute, Hillsborough, County Down. _

H. Jordan, Esq., Lissue, Lisburn, County Down.

J. Jordan, Esq., Drumbane House, Moira, County Down.

Herr Nys@ Avlsgaard, Praestg, Denmark.

Herr Kaj Nielsen, Aulebjerg, Strgby, Denmark.

Herr Hans Pedersen, Orsted, Havdrup, near Roskilde.

Major Branth, Kavalergaard, Denmark.

Herr Aage Nielsen, Havby Bygaard, Jungshoved, Praesto, Denmark.

Herr Lars Jensen, Rejnstrup, Denmark.

Denkavit, N.V., Voorthuizen, Netherlands.

Bernard Matthews Ltd., Great Witchingham Hall, Great Witchingham, Norwich
Norfolk.

Stephen Vincent, Esq., Bawburgh Hall, Norwich, Norfolk.

Frank Peele, Esq., Rookery Farm, Thuxton, Norwich, Norfolk.

J. L. Matthews, Esq., 19 Regent Street, Bletchley, Buckinghamshire.

A. E. Moss, Esq., White Cloud Farm, Tring, Hertfordshire.

Dale Turkeys Ltd., Caynham Court, Ludlow, Shropshire.

70

APPENDIX III

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON WELFARE OF ANIMALS IN
INTENSIVE LIVESTOCK HUSBANDRY SYSTEMS

THE ASSESSMENT OF PAIN AND DISTRESS IN ANIMALS
BY W. H. THorPE, M.A., Sc.D., F.R.S.
(Director, Sub-Dept. of Animal Behaviour, Cambridge University)

There are two opposite pitfalls which beset those who, like ourselves, attempt
to decide upon the limits of physical injury and restraint which it is not per-
missible for a civilised people to exceed in their treatment of domestic animals.
The first is the error of supposing that domestic animals in their feelings and
anxieties are essentially like human beings ; the second is the equally serious error
of assuming that they are mere insentient automata. To avoid these two pitfalls
is relatively easy. To know what path to choose between them is extremely
difficult. If we consider that certain treatments may cause pain or suffering
we then have to examine more carefully what we mean by these words. There
is no doubt that wild and domestic animals feel pain, usually more or less tran-
sient. But it is vitally important to distinguish the sensation of pain which
is an essential safeguard of the animal body, from the idea of “suffering” as
experienced by human beings. Human suffering is often very largely a matter
of prolonged anxiety and imaginative anticipation of further pain—both of which
are incomparably less well developed in most animals as far as we can see. There
is no doubt that many types of animals live in the present to an extent which it
is hard for a human being to conceive. But, even so, many animals not only
remember the past but fear the future, at least to some degree ; and the extent
to which they do so is of vital moment to our task. Moreover, it must be
remembered that most of the animals which are employed in husbandry have
a social life of a fairly advanced nature (as I believe my subsequent discussion
will show) and we must therefore be doubly careful in coming to any decisions
as to what is permissible, and take into account all the evidence available to
us as to the degree of the animal’s social development in nature.

There are two fundamental types of scientific evidence which bear closely
on the problem of cruelty to animals, namely physiological and ethological, based
in the first on the structure of the animal and the function of its parts ; and in the
second on its observed behaviour. When we come to interpretation we shall find
that the two lines of evidence act and interact upon one another.

Let us take first the anatomical-physiological aspect. This will be considered
under the headings of (i) pain and discomfort (ii) stress (including fright, anxiety,
frustration, apprehension etc.).

(i) Pain and discomfort

The reactions of animals to the kinds of stimuli which cause pain or fear in
ourselves are very often but not always very similar to our own, so that we
immediately have a sympathetic feeling for the animal. There are three reactions
of this kind: (a) a struggle to escape, (b) the contortion of parts of the body,
especially the face, and (c) the production of sounds that are unusual in the
ordinary course of life and are either loud or piercing or else appear to us
to be mournful and full of foreboding. Since most of the animals that we are
concerned with live in groups, they have special habits in relation to social life,
and we find that young animals which are normally tended by their parents,
often call attention to their sensation of pain in a way that is easily interpreted
by us. In the same way a parent animal which has been separated from a young

71

one usually expresses its anxiety in a manner which we human beings cannot
easily mistake.

As to the sensation of pain itself, there can be little doubt that all the animals
with which the farmer is concerned have a pain sense at least similar in type
if not in degree to that of man. All of them have the minute nerve endings
widely distributed over the body which are particularly associated with pain
perception and the fibres from which cross the spinal cord and ascend to the
brain as a special tract (the spino-thalamic) which is distinct from the tract by
which sensations of touch reach the brain. In all domestic animals the
mechanism and the essential arrangement of the structures concerned is the
same as in man. But there are differences in the relative sizes of the parts, and
in many animals the thalamus is relatively larger and the cortex smaller than in
man. This difference (as Baker, J. R. 1948 has shown) becomes progressively
more noticeable as we descend towards the more primitive mammals and
birds and especially when we reach the lower classes of vertebrates. This might
mean that the animal is quite as well aware as we are of the existence of violent
pain but is less capable of localising it in any special part of the body. The
animal may thus be more likely to react with violent movements that may result
from the functioning of the thalamus and less likely to take controlled and
directed action to avoid the stimulus since the higher centres are smaller and
presumably are in less effective control. We may sum up this section by quoting
Baker as follows: “‘ When we consider how closely similar the nervous systems
of man and the higher animals are, in regard to the path followed by impulses
originating in sites of injury, it is only reasonable to conclude that these animals
are conscious of pain in the same sort of way that we are. At any rate, no
humane person can act on the assumption that they are not.’ (Italics mine.)

(ii) Stress (including fright, anxiety, frustration, apprehension etc.)

it was the fashion until recently for physiologists to ignore, more or less, the
subject of stress and anxiety, since so little was known about them from the
physiological angle that little useful could be said. In recent years, however, a
great deal of knowledge has accumulated concerning the physiological effects
of fright and anxiety in animals, particularly in the wild and the laboratory
rat. Rats are highly social animals which can learn to know individually a
large number of associates and if, under laboratory conditions, strangers are
introduced they will almost invariably be attacked and some of them killed
outright. However, many such interlopers die without being attacked and some,
after being subjected to severe attack, die even though they may not appear to
have been critically injured or even not injured at all. There is abundant
evidence that death is due to shock following on fright, and that it is associated
with the increased size of the adrenals, a lowering of liver glycogen and a great
increase in the blood sugar content. Similar shock disease leading to death is
well known in captive wild mammals and birds. As a result of captivity the
animals exchange a life of sustained and violent activity for a placid and some-
times boring existence. Their adrenals regress to the point at which they are
unable to sustain even minor disturbances such as being transferred to new
quarters or disturbed by repairs to the cage. They show many of the physio-
logical symptoms of the stressed rats just discussed and presumably their
sufferings are in some respect similar to those of a human being under similar
circumstances. There is no reason to suppose that domestic animals are essen-
tially different from wild animals in these respects and the well known loss of
condition in cattle resulting from a change of quarters is a probable example of
it. But the process of domestication has no doubt led, in some cases at least, to a
physiclogical adaptation which reduces the violence, and sometimes no doubt
alters the form, of the response to disturbing conditions. Nevertheless, physio-

72

logical studies, as far as they have gone, give no ground whatever for believing
that, whether in cattle, sheep, pigs or poultry, suffering due to stress and
deprivation can be ignored; on the contrary it must be very much borne in
mind in assessing what is permissible in agricultural practice.

The ethological aspect .

A very large part of animal behaviour is basically determined by instinctive
or innate abilities, proclivities and dispositions. Suppression of these instinctive
appetites can give rise to evidences of prolonged and intense emotional disturb-
ances which, whether or not they are painful to the animal, are most distressing
to see. Three examples may be cited: (i) the night-long agitated flutterings of
a migratory bird confined in a cage during migration time, (ii) the extreme
emotional aggressiveness of animals isolated throughout life from their own
species without opportunity to establish emotional attachments to man or another
species. Such treatment may cause the animal to turn upon itself and so inflict
self-injury—biting or tearing its own limbs, (ili) the compulsive rocking or
pacing movements, often involving quite abnormal postures and actions, some-
times seen in zoos or circus animals long confined in cages which are too small.
It is the recognition of such treatment as cruel that has led to the existing law
in Great Britain prohibiting the keeping of birds in cages too small for them to
be able to spread their wings.

Another aspect of animal behaviour is the ability to learn; to build upon,
extend and adjust by experience, the innate patterns of behaviour ; especially as
the result of conditioning or other types of learning. By such means the animal
can learn to perfect its hunting or escape techniques, learn its way about, how
to find its way home when displaced, learn to recognise enemies and the dangers
they imply and also to learn to recognise individually members of the same
species, the same colony or the human beings which feed and tend it. In short,
the animal can learn how to organise its life as a member of a group of
associates. In regard to domestic and laboratory animals, this type of learning
has its dangerous side ; for the animal can learn to fear persons and places which
have been associated with pain and injury (as for example the dread of a dog
being taken to a veterinary surgery where it has once been hurt). This is of
great importance in laboratory practice. But in the laboratory the development
of fear and anxiety can be almost completely avoided if, for example, by
skilful handling and the use of drugs the possibility of the animal realising cause
and effect is prevented, so that he does not associate any pain he may suffer
with any person who tends him or any of the regular daily or weekly treat-
ments he receives. A sensitive animal or bird can be reduced to a pitiable
nervous wreck by ill-treatment and unnecessary fright. But in most well run
laboratories the animals will appear reasonably serene and contented—sometimes
strikingly so. There is no basic reason why much of the suffering caused by
the practices of animal husbandry could not be avoided in much the same way.

But there remains a great deal of frustration and stress resulting from the
very nature of farming which cannot be avoided. Obviously domestic animals
cannot be allowed to run entirely free, to breed at random, to rear their own
young in the normal way of the wild, or to establish their own social groupings and
hierarchies. Nor indeed if, having experience of both, they could be asked their
opinion, is it probable that they would always prefer the wild. In the early
part of 1964 a group of African buffalo were captured in a region of Kenya
where their natural existence was no longer tolerable or possible, and were
taken for release in the Nairobi National Park. They resented being captured,
as any wild animal would. After capture, during the processes of transport
and preparation for release, they were of course kept in pens or yards much
like those in which domestic cattle are kept. When the time came for their

ie)

release in the new environment, they showed many signs of distaste for it. .
They would return towards human habitations at nightfall and try to enter the
paddocks where they had been. One even tried to walk through the french
windows of the office of the Director of the Kenya National Parks. The
natural assumption is that the unfamiliar National Park, reeking of lion,
leopard and other dangerous and uncomfortable neighbours, must have
seemed a very unfriendly place; far inferior to the luxurious though
restricted quarters they had become used to inhabiting! These buffalo could
be “asked” because they had experienced both the wild and captive states.
Domestic animals cannot usually be “asked” because they have never experi-
enced the former; and animals, like men, doubtless prefer to keep the ills they
have than fly to others that they know not of. But there is no doubt that a well
managed farm or ranch run on approximately “natural” lines can provide an
environment for animals which, on any estimate that we are able to make, must
be in many ways preferable to the wild. At least farm animals are not subject
to the dangers of predator attack or forest fire, they do not die of starvation or
thirst, they are largely protected from the scourges of parasite attack and from
innumerable painful and wasting diseases. All this is on the credit side. What
then, we may ask, does it matter if, on the debit side, they are forced to
endure much boredom and a few fleeting pains and frustrations? And any-
way, are not domestic animals so stupid that the extent of their mental life
can be ignored as irrelevant? The answer we may give to these questions
obviously depends on the very difficult business of estimating the intensity
and range of these experiences of animals and, that elusive quality, their
“intelligence”. Difficult as this may be, we must attempt it; but in doing
so we shall certainly arrive at the wrong conclusions unless we take into con-
sideration every relevant fact that biological studies have to offer. I think,
therefore, the most useful contribution is to attempt to summarise this know-
ledge as it relates to the main groups of domestic animals.

Before attempting to deal with the different animals, there is one general
observation which I wish to stress again. All the domestic animals which man
farms are species which, in the wild, show a fairly highly organised social life,
either in flock, family, clan or herd. This means that their mental and
behavioural organisation is also potentially on a high level, far higher in fact
than the ordinary man imagines. Even though a cow in a stall or a pig in a
sty may appear stupid enough, this impression may be quite erroneous simply
because we have never even begun to comprehend the social organisation of the
wild ancestor which in turn, despite the effects of domestication, still undoubtedly
determines the sensory abilities and level of feeling and perception of the
animal.

In this brief survey I propose to start with the “lowest”’ and work upwards:
hence I shall begin with the domestic fowl.

The domestic: fowl

The domestic fowl in its many forms was no doubt derived mainly if not
entirely from the Burmese Red Jungle Fowl (Gallus gallus gallus), a member
of the pheasant family which abounds in the woods of northern India. The
cock has a harem of females and there is evidently a fairly high degree of
flock organisation. An intensive study of the behavioural development of the
Burmese Red Jungle Fowl has recently been published (Kruijt, 1964) and
publication of a similarly detailed study of the domestic fowl by Baeumer was
completed in 1962. There appears to be no essential difference between the
behavioural organisation of the wild ancestor and a modern breed such as the
White Leghorn. The mother hen accepts strange chicks up to 2 to 5 days
after hatching provided they are the same colour as her own, but after that time

74

repels or even kills strangers irrespective of their colour. Social order plays
an important role in the life of chickens and begins to develop fairly early.
Young chicks settle the pecking order by real fighting in which all members of
a brood often simultaneously engage in single combat. A rather permanent
social stratification results from age grouping, cocks being generally dominant
over hens, but young cocks having to fight their way up by vanquishing every
hen of the flock. Social rank order does not mean permanent aggression
between the fellow members of a flock and an established place in a community
is a very real need for the individual. Social grooming is frequent and may lead,
under abnormal circumstances, to the bad habit of feather eating. Examples
of what appears to be social aid have been described: if a chicken tries
to swallow a long strand of grass the latter often gets stuck in its throat, in
which case it is regularly removed by another chicken. The cock drives stray
hens back to the flock and there are many interesting cases of learning and long-
term memory and some very surprising examples which seem to show a highly
complicated mental process by which human aid may be exploited to the great
advantage of the individual. Once rights have been established, fights may
still occur but they do not last long and do not end in a decision, but in the
combatants parting in a peculiar manner, each “saving his face”. The species
has a great number of different innate sounds or groups of sounds, each with
a definite meaning in the social organisation. Although the characteristics of
these vocal expressions vary with races and individuals, they are sufficiently
general to serve for effective communication between various types of chickens.
Some sounds voice contact with the flock and aid in finding the members, some
attract others to food which has just been found, some alert to possible danger
from the ground and air as well as warning of such dangers by graduation of
sound. ‘Some sounds indicate general excitement, others guard against annoy-
ance, and still others serve as communication within the rank order. There is
also vocal interaction between the cock and hen while choosing the nesting
place.

Social organisation is based primarily on recognition of the head features,
shape, size and flexibility of the comb, and colour, especially strong colours and
white. The memory feats of chickens are quite remarkable. Both breed recog-
nition and individual recognition can be learnt simultaneously. Memory for
individuals may last up to three weeks and may be exceedingly precise. There
is evidence for a persistent peck order in a flock of 96 pullets. A hen can
remember the features and furnishings of its pen after an absence of over 14
days but compared to many other animals, chickens have a rather poor per-
formance in detour tésts and this is partly the reason for the quite erroneously
low estimates of their intelligence which most people have.

Social stress is caused by temperature extremes, deficiencies of food and
water, disease, competition with flock mates and overcrowding. Such social
stress will result in decrease in clutch length, triggering of the moult etc.
Caging, of course, eliminates the peck order so that timid hens have a better
chance to produce when in batteries. Evidence upon the effect of caging on
egg production is still somewhat conflicting. However, the California Improve-
ment Commission (1961) using 5,400 birds of 55 different stocks, showed higher
egg production from floor birds than from caged birds. De-beaked birds peck
at a higher rate and de-beaking does not alter aggressiveness. Thus it does not
eliminate social tension but does not, on the other hand, seem to influence mating
ability and fertility.

To sum up the situation very briefly, it may be safely said that certain elements
of modern methods of poultry farming must result in extreme deprivation and
a very great deal of conflict and tension in a highly social and quite intelligent
animal as a result of the almost complete suppression of instinctive drives and

wie)

innate social organisation, and their associated powers of perception and
memory.

We are much less concerned with other poultry, but a few comments are
relevant. The behaviour of turkeys parallels that of chickens closely in a num-
ber of respects and what has been said above applies sufficiently well to guide
us to assess similar situations resulting from turkey farming. Ducks are very
similar in parent-young interactions, their ability to learn to recognise one
another, and in their powers of vocal communication, which however have not
been studied so thoroughly. When, however, the families break up there is
not the same maintenance of social organisation, but there must be an extremely
good memory—perhaps much better than in the domestic fowl. Added to this
there is the very high intelligence associated with the migratory habit, recognition
of landmarks, and flyways, and the ability to return to the breeding territory
which makes the mallard appear far more “ intelligent’ than the ancestor of
the domestic chicken. The domestic goose in the form most usually met with
is derived from the Grey Lag Goose of Europe (Anser anser). In regard to social
organisation, it is one of the most highly developed of all birds and far from
being stupid, must be greatly superior in mental and perceptual powers to the
domestic fowl.

The mammals

Most of the mammals that we are concerned with in this report are members
of the Ungulata—pigs, sheep and cattle. Here again the same basic facts apply,
namely that these are essentially.animals with a relatively high degree of family
and social organisation, and therefore equipped with quite advanced and dis-
tinctive behaviour patterns and drives, and a high—often remarkably high—
ability to learn. It is a remarkable fact that although these animals have been
domesticated for many centuries (in the case of the pig, since the Neolithic at
least), very little change in basic behavioural equipment and capacity has
resulted from man’s selective breeding. There seems no doubt that, in the
main, these creatures are still essentially what they were in the prehistoric wild.
In fact the only features of their behaviour that one can point to with any
degree of confidence as having been changed by domestication, is the greater
adaptability the domestic form shows in their toleration of sudden and great
changes in environment and the decrease in selectivity for mates which they
often show. Domestic mammals will often endure with only minor physiological
and psychological upset, a change of scene or introduction to an unfamiliar pen
which would very likely result in death from shock if experienced by a wild
animal in a zoo.

Swine. Feral swine live in herds of five to eight, usually under the leadership
of a senior boar. They are markedly territorial, at any rate in some areas, and
there is no reasonable doubt that the boar and presumably other members of
the herd, can recognise their normal associates individually, and also the young
piglets. Both wild and domesticated pigs show a number of characteristics
which are relative to our problems. They are extremely curious and interested
in their environment. They are clearly very sensitive to climatic changes and
in winter tend to huddle together on their bellies to conserve body heat, and
during hot weather lie down in the open on their sides, their snouts facing the
wind. Moreover, they have a special means of temperature regulation, keeping
the body surface cool and moist by wallowing. They choose definite territories
for “resting”, though this seems to decrease to some extent in laboratory-
reared animals. They are normally diurnal, but in tropical or sub-tropical areas
and in temperate climates during very hot weather, much of their activity takes
place at night. When compared in intelligence tests with crows and laboratory
rats, the animals being required to choose a particular one among a series of

76

food boxes, their scores indicated a far higher adaptive capacity than the other
two species. The learning ability of pigs shows itself extremely early in life.
Each piglet learns to recognise a particular teat which thereafter elicits the
feeding response. This learning is by both sight and smell: Once the particular
teat is recognised, the teat becomes the chief if not the only one, eliciting the
feeding response. Consequently a teat order is formed when suckling. Not
only do the piglets recognise the teats with certainty, they also recognise the
other members of their litter by sight and smell. Moreover, they have a definite
communication system associated with feeding, warning, location and alarm, based
on a considerable series of vocalisations which have not yet been very fully
studied. Pigs also, as every farmer knows, can quickly learn to recognise par-
ticular sounds as fore-runners of reward. Young piglets appear to get
“imprinted ” on the parent and to some extent on the litter-mates, in somewhat
the same way as do young goslings and other precocial birds, but in the Ungulates
this is probably based more on scent than on vision. Both young and adult pigs
show a good deal of play behaviour, and it has been stated that a play object
such as a chain or rubber hose in each pen will occupy the attention of the
group so well that it will minimise destructive activities such as tail-biting. How-
ever, the relatively elaborate games which are found in some other ungulates
and many other mammals do not seem to have been described in swine. Feeding
in the wild seems to be selective and the behaviour concerned with it,
particularly the care with which particular delicacies are sought out and procured,
highly complex. The ability of pigs to find truffles is, of course, Well known.

To sum up, the domestic pig seems to have been changed only in minor
ways by the long process of domestication. The general temperament whether
“lively” or “dull” is certainly to a considerable extent under the control of
the breeder, as are some parts of the sexual behaviour. Otherwise the domestic
pig seems to show almost all the needs, drives, abilities and intelligence of its
wild ancestor.

Sheep. Sheep have been domesticated certainly since 4,000 BC, and
possibly since 6,500 BC which is the earliest record for the association of
domestic goats with man. The nearest existing wild animal to the supposed
ancestor of the sheep is the Mouflon, and the Soay sheep is thought to be the
oldest and most primitive of the domesticated breeds. Sheep and goats, both
wild and domesticated, have all the behaviour patterns which we have been
discussing, associated with a highly organised family and clan structure appro-
priate for ranging over wild and desolate country. In the Mouflon the mother
knows her lambs individually by smell as early as the age of 12 hours and the
lambs know their mother by sight from the third day on. Vocalisations play an
important part in the organisation of the flock, and memory for odours appears
to be extremely long-lasting. Rather surprisingly, sheep do not appear to be
as capable as pigs of learning visual patterns, and their sight is more probably
adapted for use in open country and for detecting danger a long way off, than
it is for close recognition. From the point of view of play, which is one of the
best guides to the general intelligence level of a species, and which until not
very long ago was regarded as peculiar to man, (!) sheep rank very high—
probably higher than any other ungulate. The elaborate ‘ follow-my-leader ”’
and “ king-of-the-castle ’ games played by lambs are familiar to all. There is
a large number of sound signals governing every aspect of the normal life, but
these have not yet been investigated in detail.

To sum up, we can say that probably the sheep is the least affected by
domestication of any of the ungulates.

Cattle. All the European breeds of domestic cattle appear to have come
from the extinct Bos primogenius (the Aurochs) which finally became extinct in

i)

the year 1627. Domestication was well advanced by 2,500 BC when there were
already a number of distinct breeds in existence. Although the wild ancestor of
the domestic cattle cannot now be studied, much can be learned of the life and
organisation of the genus by studying cattle which have returned to the wild,
as in the Camargue, supposedly primitive breeds such as the Chillingham cattle,
and related species such as the European and American bison. All these sources
of information point to cattle as being essentially a highly intelligent ungulate,
surpassed in this respect only by the horse amongst domesticated animals. The
ability of cattle for individual recognition is probably higher than that of any
of the other animals we are concerned with, and in addition to all the faculties
found in, say, the sheep, there must have been a high degree of organisation in
the groups which made up the large herds which roamed the plains. Because
of migratory movements, there was undoubtedly great capacity for learning the
features of a familiar environment, characters of landscape and so forth, and
for remembering these probably over very many years. Feeding behaviour is
very complex, as a great many recent studies have shown, and the animals have
a high degree of curiosity which enables them to learn what they need to know
about their surroundings. The herd organisation led among other things to much
mutual grooming, which is presumably another means of establishing individual
recognition. Attachment between the calf and the mother is particularly strong
and probably endures long after weaning. This recognition is based on olfactory,
visual and auditory cues. Play is well developed in cattle and it has been much
studied. It appears to be an innate entity in itself, with its own drive, emotion,
‘“‘releasers ’ and goals. It is in fact an activity engaged in solely for the sake
of the activity itself, and not for the end result. Well fed, healthy animals
under good conditions play more often than sick and poorly fed ones, and
more often during good weather than in cold, wet weather. Adults often play
upon release after a long period of confinement, as those who have seen Swiss
cows released in spring from their long sojourn in the winter byres will know.
Calves tend to play shortly after feeding, in new (but not strange) terrain, and
on- gaining access to movable familiar objects (e.g. a swinging door, etc.).
Common to all these situations is the idea of a new, but not unfamiliar, object
or field.

As with other domestic animals, selective breeding has produced many
changes in temperament and excitability, but there seems to be no evidence for
a substantial change in any single innate behaviour pattern or instinctive need.

Conclusion

In the above I have tried to summarise as briefly as possible what appear to
me some of the more important, and mainly recent, conclusions of physiology
and ethology concerning the senses and the behaviour of domestic animals and
their wild relatives. In arriving at our conclusion we try to bear in mind the
fact that although pain, suffering and stress are certainly not identical in
animals and men, there are sound reasons for believing that they are substantial
in domestic animals, and there is no justification whatsoever for disregarding any
of them. To come to the specifically behavioural side, it is clear that there is
bound to be a great deal of restriction and frustration accompanying agricul-
tural methods. Some of this can certainly be minimised by reducing wherever
possible the element of apprehension and the repetition of pain, and by avoiding
sudden and very drastic changes to conditions much worse than those previously
experienced by the animal.

In all that I have said it must be borne in mind that stress is a very difficult
word to use consistently. Stress in one sense is not wholly bad: there is probably
an optimum level for stress for young animals as there is for young humans.
It may be that for both too easy a time or too hard a time give rise to conflict

78

and strains. There is certainly a very real relation in human beings between
having the right amount of stimulation of various kinds in infancy and achieving,
in adult life, the best response to stressful situations. Presumably the characteris-
tics of the stress response are subject to a certain amount of artificial selection
in domesticated animals, as I have suggested, and the optimum for a domestic
cow would be different from that for a wild buffalo.

In all this I must make it clear that while I am sure both studies of compara-
tive physiology and of behaviour have yielded and are yielding some extremely
important facts which we must not neglect, nevertheless we are often extra-
ordinarily ignorant of just those things we want to know most. In fact quite a
number of lines of special research would have to be undertaken over some years
before we could get much further towards a fully scientific answer to many of
our problems. What is required is to examine the incidence of those expressive
movements which are known to be associated with damaging situations in order
to assess whether animals brought up with a certain degree of deprivation
“ suffer’ from deprivation and stress in adulthood. It is obvious that this would
be a major experimental undertaking. But, in the meantime, we are on safe
ground in concluding that conditions which lead to physical deformity and to
highly abnormal nutritional physiology must be considered as cruel. With regard
to deprivation, the problem is more difficult for we have to decide to draw a line
at a point where there may be no clear distinction, only a degree of difference.
But here again certain basic facts are clear enough to justify action. Whilst
accepting the need for much restriction, we must draw the line at conditions
which completely suppress all or nearly all the natural, instinctive urges and
behaviour patterns characteristic of actions appropriate to the high degree of
social organisation as found in the ancestral wild species and which have been
little, if at all, bred out in the process of domestication. In particular, it is
clearly cruel so to restrain an animal for a large part of its life that it cannot
use any of its normal locomotory behaviour patterns.

As a conclusion, we may aptly quote a few sentences, already referred to
in our report above, from a recent address of Lord Brain, in which he was
discussing this very question, primarily from the physiological side. ‘I personally
can see no reason for conceding mind to my fellow men and denying it to animals
. . . Mental functions, rightly viewed, are but servants of the impulses and
emotions by which we live, and these, the springs of life, are surely diencephalic
in their neurological location. Since the diencephalon is well developed in
animals and birds, I at least cannot doubt that the interests and activities of
animals are correlated with awareness and feelings in the same way as my
own, and which may be, for ought I know, just as vivid.”

79

APPENDIX IV

Report of the Committee on Experiments on Animals
(Cmnd. 2641) 1965, paragraphs 179-182

The Statutory Concept of Pain

179. Many scientific witnesses suggested that the concept to be controlled
by the Act should be expressly expanded from “pain” to comprise “ any inter-
ference with or departure from the animal’s normal state of health or well-being ”’,
and that this larger concept should be termed ‘“‘ discomfort ” or “ distress”. Their
argument ran as follows. If he is familiar with the animal concerned the prac-
tised observer can readily detect when it is “out of sorts” or “ off colour” and
take steps to discover and remedy the cause. This condition does not deserve
to be called “pain”; it is of a lower order and more akin to feelings of dis-
pleasure aroused in man by non-physical stimuli; indeed, it may be produced
in animals by environmental stimuli of an indirect kind. If prolonged, however,
it may lead to pain, and even if it does not the sum total of suffering short of
actual pain may far exceed that of animals in which severe pain is transient or
terminated after a relatively short time.

180. Other witnesses reminded us that mental illness and neurosis are largely
problems in modern civilisation and, drew attention to increasing interest in
states of animal behaviour and psychological experiment designed to find forms
of treatment for disordered states in human patients. They cited evidence that
acute fear, chronic anxiety or artificially-produced conflict of motives or frus-
tration could produce psychosomatic effects in animals such as gastric ulceration,
and we saw for ourselves that animals exposed to environmental stimuli, such
as loud noises or bright light, exhibit physical signs of discomfort. These wit-
nesses told us that manipulation of environment was likely to be much more
widely used as an experimental technique in future, and urged that any pro-
cedure designed to produce the equivalent of stress in man should be subject
to statutory control.

181. Within the concept of “pain”, therefore, it is desirable to provide for
at least three states of suffering:

(a) discomfort (such as may be characterised by such negative signs as poor
condition, torpor, diminished appetite) ;

(b) stress (i.e. a condition of tension or anxiety predictable or readily ex-
plicable from environmental causes whether distinct from or including
physical causes) ;

(c) pain (recognisable by more positive signs such as struggling, scream-
ing or squealing, convulsions, severe palpitation).

As already indicated (paragraph 88) Home Office practice has been to use a
wide interpretation of “pain” to cover pain, distress, discomfort or disturbance
of normal health ; and we understand that it has not found much difficulty in
extending this interpretation to psychological experiment. We found general
support for Home Office practice but some conflict of view on how this should be
provided for in the law.

182. Some witnesses argued that states of pain, discomfort and stress might
often overlap depending upon the degree to which suffering in the animal is phy-
sical or mental or both, that it was impossible to detect different forms of suffer-
ing, and that the most convenient course was to label any suffering as “pain”.
Other witnesses argued that to qualify “pain” in the statute might throw doubt
on the width of the interpretation to be placed on this term rather than extend
it to all forms of suffering it was desirable to control. Some scientific as well
as anti-vivisection bodies suggested that the word “pain” should be retained

80

throughout the Act because it was a more challenging reminder of the suffering
inseparable from experiments; words like “discomfort” or “stress”, it was
argued, might be criticised as euphemistic or intentionally misleading. On the
other hand, it was urged that the widest possible definition of suffering would
give the widest possible protection to animals; and that the image of the Act
should not depend on administrative interpretation if the intention could be
explicitly stated in the law. Our own view is that, if the range of suffering
to be subject to the Act can be more precisely defined than at present, there
should be less risk of confusion about the principles on which selective controls
are applied, and more assurances of attention to the animal. We are satisfied
that it is realistic to identify the three forms of suffering mentioned in paragraph
181, and that these comprise the range of suffering which should be subject
to the Act. We recommend, therefore, that the Act should be amended so as
clearly to apply to any experimental procedure liable to cause pain, stress, or
interference with, or departure from, an animal’s normal condition of well-being.
~ With this in mind we shall refer throughout this Report to “pain” only when
we mean pain in the strict sense, i.e. an extreme sensation of suffering more acute
than discomfort or stress.

81

APPENDIX V
Suffering of Animals

Report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals
(Cmd. 8266) 1951, paragraphs 36—42

36. We have mentioned the widely held view that animals suffer, both
mentally and physically, in the same way as human beings. Many of the allega-
tions of cruelty which have been made to us in evidence have been based on
this premise, and we have therefore examined very carefully the evidence which
we have received on this question. It is, of course, indirect evidence, for no
human being can have direct knowledge of what an animal feels or of the
degree to which it suffers pain.

PHYSICAL SUFFERING

37. As we understand it, pain is the sensation mediated by a distinct family
of nerve fibres which have their own connections with the brain. Pain is not as
is commonly believed, the consequence of over-stimulating the organs devoted
to some other sort of sensation, and by surgical means the sensation of pain can
in fact be abolished from areas in which feelings of touch, pressure, heat and ~
cold have been allowed to persist.

38. Some mammals are known to have, and all may be presumed to have,
the nervous apparatus which in human beings is known to mediate the sensation
of pain, and this is acceptable evidence that mammals do indeed feel pain.
Further, animals squeal, struggle, and give other “ behavioural’? evidence which
is generally regarded as the accompaniment of painful feelings. Evidence of
this second sort is, perhaps, less certain, because outward signs of pain are
variable and may be absent and it is impossible to say whether, and in what
sense, the cry of an animal is to be given the same weight as the cry of a human
being. Nevertheless, we believe that the physiological, and more particularly
the anatomical, evidence fully justifies and reinforces the commonsense belief
that animals feel pain.

39. It might be suggested that the nerve-fibre systems of animals which are
structurally analogous to the pain systems of human beings mediate some quite
different sensation of a sort which is necessarily unknown to human beings. We
do not, however, accept this suggestion. Pain is of the utmost biological value
to animals because in general what is painful is also harmful, and consequently
animals tend to avoid anything which gives them the sensation of pain. Pain
is the “conditioning” stimulus which teaches an animal to avoid what is
physically harmful to it, and this end could hardly be achieved unless the pain
felt by animals was painful in the ordinary sense. Pain is therefore a sensation
of clear-cut biological usefulness, and this fact may be accepted as a third type
of evidence that animals feel pain.

40. We are satisfied, therefore, that animals suffer pain in the same way as
human beings. Nevertheless, we think it may be a mistake to assume that the
severity of the pain or the amount of suffering that is experienced varies in strict
proportion to the severity of the wound. Some organs are insensitive to pain and
severe injuries to them can be less painful than minor injuries to other organs.
Conversely it is known that in human beings almost unremitting pain of the
severest kind may be the consequence of injuries or abnormalities which are in a
physical sense quite trivial. It is possible, furthermore, that under conditions of
great physical excitement or stress animals may, like human beings, become
temporarily insensitive to what would otherwise be acutely painful stimuli. Very
detailed and confident statements about the degree of pain which animals suffer
as a result of one sort of injury or another are therefore only too likely to be
misleading.

82

MENTAL SUFFERING

41. Several witnesses have laid great stress on the fact that, in their opinion,
animals suffer ‘“ mentally” when they are pursued or caught. It is, as we have
already said, impossible for a human being to know exactly what an animal does
feel, but a reliable indication can be obtained by comparing the symptoms
exhibited by animals with those which are known to accompany mental suffering
in human beings. Awareness of, and preparations for, danger are associated in
man with a general stimulation of nervous and endocrine systems which leads to
such familiar consequences as an increase in the rate and efficiency of the heart-
beat, an increase in the rate and depth of breathing, rise of blood pressure,
pallor and sweating. The complex of sensations that accompanies these activities
is usually known as “alarm”, “acute fear’, or “terror”, according to its degree
of severity. Animals show these signs of agitation and it is reasonable to suppose
that they feel their sensory or mental accompaniments as well. It can, of course,
be argued that fear and terror are purely mental activities superimposed upon
the physical signs of terror and independent of the merely “ physical” sensations
that accompany them, but we do not think that this interpretation is plausible and
are satisfied that animals do suffer from acute fear and terror.

42. We are not, however, satisfied that wild animals suffer from apprehension
or the after-effects of fear to the same extent as human beings. Wild animals
must live very largely in the present, and although a hunted fox, for example,
may be aware that it is being hunted and that if the hounds catch it something
to be avoided will happen, we think it would be going beyond the evidence to
say that the fox realises that it may be killed. We have been told by several
witnesses of hunted foxes stopping to kill a chicken, but the scientific explanation
of this is still uncertain. We think therefore, that, while it is reasonable to assume
that wild animals suffer from temporary fear and terror, there are no grounds
for supposing that they suffer from apprehension to the same extent as human
beings or that a frightening experience has the same serious or lasting effect
upon them as it may have upon us.

83

APPENDIX VI

NOTE ON Foop ADDITIVES, ANTIBIOTICS AND OESTROGENS
(Provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food)

Antibiotics

1. Under powers given them by the Therapeutic Substances Act, 1956, the
Health Ministers have made regulations which provide that certain antibiotics
(including nearly all those in common use) may be obtained only on prescription.
There is, however, an exception to this rule which makes it possible for farmers
to obtain feedingstuffs for pigs and poultry containing antibiotics. This exception
is confined to three specific antibiotics (penicillin, chlortetracycline and
oxytetracyline) and applies only if the amount of the antibiotic incorporated
in the feedingstuff does not exceed 100 grams per ton. A similar exception
is made for antibiotic supplements which farmers can obtain for inclusion in
feed they mix themselves. Any use of antibiotics in feedingstuffs outside the
terms of these exceptions is possible only on a veterinary surgeon’s prescription.

2. New regulations are currently the subject of consultation with interested
bodies which would allow feedingstuffs for calves containing antibiotics to be
obtained without prescription provided the antibiotic content did not exceed 50
grams per ton; reduce the maximum level for pig and poultry feedingstuffs also
to 50 grams per ton; and replace the exception at present allowed for antibiotic
supplements with one confined to the high-protein type of concentrate containing
antibiotics. |

Veterinary Products Safety Precautions Scheme

3. This voluntary scheme was drawn up following discussions between
Government Departments and representatives of professional and commercial
organisations. It covers all veterinary products, not subject to other controls
such as those contained in the Therapeutic Substances Act, which are available
directly to the farmer. Its purpose is to safeguard human beings (whether they
be users, consumers of food substances from treated animals or poultry, or
other members of the public), livestock, domestic animals and wildlife against
risks arising from the use of veterinary products. Under the scheme distributors
undertake to notify new products before they are introduced, and new uses
of existing products ; to provide information to enable Departments to advise on
precautionary measures for their use ; not to market new products until agreement
on precautionary measures has been reached; to include agreed precautions
on the label and to take measures to ensure that they are understood and
observed.

Declaration of certain additives in animal feeding stuffs

4. The addition of minerals or drugs to prepared animal feeds is a com-
monly used method of preventing certain enzootic infections or conditions and
obtaining favourable growth rates. In 1959 the trade associations representing
most manufacturers of animal feedingstuffs introduced after discussion with
Government Departments the Voluntary Scheme for the Declaration of Certain
Additives in Feedingstuffs. The scheme includes coccidiostats, anti-blackhead
drugs, synthetic hormones and copper and magnesium additives. Manufacturers
participating in it agree to give certain information on the label of the feeding-
stuff, or on the invoice for bulk deliveries including the name of the feedingstuff
and the type of stock for which it is intended, the short chemical name of the
additive, the rate of inclusion at the time of manufacture and special instructions
and cautions as to use.

5. Ministers have powers under the Fertilisers and Feedingstuffs Act 1926,
to make regulations requiring sellers of feedingstuffs to make declarations as

84

to the presence and amounts of specified ingredients. Local authorities take
samples and action can be taken against sellers if declarations are incorrect to
the prejudice of the purchaser. The Standing Advisory Committee which advises
Ministers of regulations made under the Act is at present considering the
desirability and practicability of bringing the additives covered by the Voluntary
Declaration Scheme within the scope of the Act. One of the practicable diffi-
culties involved in requiring declarations of the amounts of additives present
is that acceptable methods of analysis must be available to test the accuracy of

—~ such declarations.

6. Other voluntary arrangements have been agreed by the trade associations
including a recommendation to members not to use arsenicals or thyroid
stimulants in feeding stuffs.

Synthetic Oestrogens

7. Synthetic oestrogens are used to improve liveweight gain in cattle and
sheep and to improve carcase quality in poultry. They are administered to
poultry by implantation of a pellet at the base of the skull and to cattle by
implantation in the ear; mixture with feeds is now rare. Their use is not
widespread. Although no firm figures are available, it has been estimated that
about 2-3 per cent. of beef cattle, a smaller proportion of sheep and about
10 per cent. of table poultry are treated in this way. Synthetic oestrogens are
not used on broiler poultry. Except at the site of the implant only very slight
traces of hormone are detectable in the flesh of treated poultry and no trace
can be detected in the flesh of treated cattle. Government Departments in con-
sultation with the Agricultural Research Council and the Medical Research
Council keep watch on the use of these products in all its aspects including
human and animal health.

Food and Drugs Act, 1955
8. General control of residues in food for human consumption is effected
under the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, which provides inter alia that:
(a) no person shall add any substance to food so as to render it injurious
to health ;
(b) no person shall sell to the prejudice of the purchaser food which is not
of the nature, quality of substance demanded of him ;
(c) no person shall sell food intended for but unfit for human consumption.

These provisions are enforced by local foods and drugs authorities whose
officers may take samples for analysis by the Public Analyst. Authorities may
take proceedings against the seller of any food which contravenes the Act’s
provisions and may suspend the sale of food found to be unfit for human
consumption.

Nutritive value and flavour

9. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked his Scientific
Advisory Panel to consider whether intensive systems of production have any
effect on the quality and taste of food and studies of the chemical composition
of meat, eggs and poultry are being undertaken to this end.

(30234) Dd. 124719 K48 12/65 StS. \

gt OE a aes
: os ‘Post. k, eres

, b=
aim a

tre -t? #, »f

iy ee » Te

»
i“ ~~
a a
i
-
i s.
>
i, aoe
haat a
a
> ieee
>}
7% y wes 1 fue at 3 feat cate” Se Saba “ge Ohba Nas te
i= ¢ alee ‘ oe lFi j ‘ $a Si a A ee ep Ag u
. ~ ; Bess — * 7 vey AS UE» 4
—_ uw s 3 5 ‘ ai “hile ) Cat reas es a
> 2 * es ut +: tty ¥ ¥ «) { A : Lae yy Me tare eka ¢ ao

ba ;
ae

Tits
ariak Suce
arpo”

the post 27°.

receipt of » ch

ed and returned

vill be assumed

- which he will

ee of publications
ne borrower.

ee publicatic”s

he value of «'
‘'m, and, if %t |
2 of the w:
| writing in .
i ; ‘re requested

or twenty-ei

days. Applic

made in writ
«@ extended w.:
iat Of the Soci:
-cepted as final .

Library will not
m the date recei.
yt be borrowed.
ager than the ti —
-an demanded, fori:
& and for such furt
; S cequest for the ro
able for the ccs:
» giving due nc’ -
mse.
cue same borrow's: . >
» its return, neith.
-- another.
-, or sent out of the .

e Pe oe, 4 the post mus’ fe *
ae > THE Lites:

pF AL MTY OF BY
90 j - AM Petes: Roap, Le Et

Printed and published by
HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE

To be purchased from
York House, Kingsway, London w.c.2
423 Oxford Street, London w.1
13A Castle Street, Edinburgh 2
109 St. Mary Street, Cardiff
39 King Street, Manchester 2_
50 Fairfax Street, Bristol 1
35 Smallbrook, Ringway, Birmingham 5
80 Chichester Street, Belfast 1
or through any bookseller

Printed in England